What’s in store for the Land Grant Universities?
by Wayne Vanderwert

Every so often I need to get on my soapbox, this is one of those occasions. What’s happening at your and my alma mater is a subject that we in the cattle business should start to think about.

First, I’ll establish the fact that I spent a fair number of years at three different land grant universities pursuing a bachelor’s, master’s and a doctorate in Animal Science. I also spent over five years in ag extension work; I’m not exactly an uninformed bystander.

Second, I have a lot of friends at land grant schools. People that I respect for their knowledge of livestock production, nutrition, breeding, physiology and meat science. These people have tremendous knowledge and the ability to convey that information to producers. This is not meant to be critical of them; in fact many of them share my concerns. They fight regularly to stay alive in a system that seems to appreciate their contribution less and less. They are the ones whose names you and I recognize and associate with our university. Their ranks are thinning.

The so-called “Land Grant” colleges were established by the Morrill Act of 1862, which gave each state 30,000 acres of land per member of the state’s delegation in Congress. The states in turn sold this land to establish a college focused on agriculture, engineering and military science--the priorities of the day.

What resulted for U.S. agriculture was research, training for young minds and dissemination of new information to agricultural producers in a system that was the envy of the rest of the world. In turn, it created a highly efficient agricultural production structure that was also admired worldwide. Not surprising that many countries send their brightest minds to study here in graduate programs.

But, the land grant system appears to be broken in some states; at the very least the system doesn’t relate to producers as well as it did in the past. There is even talk of doing away with the colleges of agriculture in some major agricultural states.

I can cite many examples where Animal Science departments and staff have lost contact with their state’s producer organizations, pass up recruitment opportunities at youth livestock events, even fail to show up at a state breed sale that is a few hundred feet from their office.

A former college teacher of mine, who is retiring this fall, pointed out that as an incoming freshman, he knew a majority of the Animal Science faculty members through his involvement in 4-H and FFA. Today, I suspect many livestock producers wouldn’t recognize the head of the department, by name or face, and have little contact with staff members.

A portion of the problem is that the system is a victim of its own success. It has fulfilled the government’s cheap food policy desires. As long as we enjoy ample supplies of high quality, safe food in this country, government funding for agriculture research will not be a priority. This has forced universities to be in the “research business”, to seek research money from other sources. That in turn has compromised the land grant’s mission of unbiased research and information. It also has eliminated much of the good applied research that needs to be done.

Additionally, part of the problem is self-inflicted. A misguided tenure system placed teaching and extension well below research several years ago. Ability to bring in research dollars became the focus for advancement. I imagine that counting published research papers is much simpler and less subjective than evaluating a good job of undergraduate teaching or extension outreach education. This has forced the teachers to be good researchers; the extension staff to be good researchers and the system awards good researchers with the administrative jobs (department heads and deans) as promotions. Any surprise that we have spiraled downward to departments overloaded with narrowly focused researchers who can’t relate to producers?

I’ve done a little soul searching in writing this editorial. I’ve challenged myself with the question, “Am I getting old-fashioned?” I don’t think so, I’m not against cutting-edge research, but I think that there is still an opportunity and need to balance research with teaching and extension. In the past extension filled an unofficial role of public relations. Producers were quick to pick up the flag and support their university. Could the recent trend contribute to university’s problems when state legislatures struggle with funding?

Another issue we need to wrestle with is one of trying to preserve the past versus prepare for the future. In agriculture we’re guilty of this every once in awhile. As the pork and poultry industries consolidated and integrated, the role of the land grant university in providing information to these industries has diminished. It is not a cause and effect issue. Consolidation is driven by the desire to gain business efficiencies and by consumer demand for consistency. Hoping to keep the beef industry from consolidating by preserving the old land grant system is an empty dream.

The solution may be in consolidation of the land grant system itself. Rural public schools and clustered county extension programs provide the model. Does every state need a specialist in every discipline? Does every institution need to fund, equip and update expensive labs to conduct basic research?

From almost every angle that we examine the situation, we in the cattle business are going to increasingly feel the impact of all of this in the coming years. As an example, Cornell University has no intention of replacing the two scientists nearing retirement, who have played a major role in the genetic evaluation system we enjoy in the seedstock business. That will reduce to two, the schools working on national cattle evaluation; a few years ago there were four universities in the so-called Genetic Consortium. Where we get the good information we’ll need to compete in the future is something to think about.

Wayne Vanderwert is Executive Director of the American Gelbvieh Association. More information on the website www.gelbvieh.org

A letter to the editor printed in the Daily Chronicle

Consumers should be criticized, not Cavel | 133 comment(s)

CHARLIE LARSON

Editor:

As a person who has been around horses much of my life (e.g., as a rider and owner, behind farm implements, during “putting down” and burials), I have been following with increasing incredulity the debate about the slaughter of horses at the Cavel International plant in DeKalb.

Let's approach the issues rationally. Here are two basic premises central to the debate on which both sides can agree:

Premise 1: All of these horses will die at some time.

Premise 2: All of them will be consumed in some way (e.g., by humans, animals, maggots or flames).

Now what is the cruelest way for these horses to die (aside from hanging, drowning, torturing, etc., as with fighting dogs)? Probably it is from the various vicissitudes of old age or from intentional starvation. The government regulates the means of killing animals at various kinds of slaughterhouses, and apparently it is quick and about as painless as a veterinary euthanasia. So the ultimate issue seems to be who or what will consume the remains. Unless the horse owners submit their animals to taxidermy, the remains will be eaten by pets (if the carcasses are sent to a rendering plant), eaten by humans (if Cavel sells them), eaten by maggots (if the carcasses are buried) or consumed by flames (if the horses are cremated).

The first two options seem the most resource- and energy-efficient, especially considering the employment generated by these options and the cost and energy entailed in burial or cremation.

So, isn't the bottom line a question of who or what consumes the remains? And if one objects to human consumption, shouldn't that be brought up with the consumers (Japan, Belgium, etc.), not with the processors? It seems to me that society would be best served by working on the dog-fighting issue.

CHARLIE LARSON

Sycamore, IL

Such a waste

As a young 4-Her, I remember lamenting, with my brother and sister, the untimely death of our best club lamb. We had vaccinated for all the relevant sheep diseases, as suggested by our veterinarian, but the lamb was still dead and for no good or apparent reason. An elderly neighbor pointed out the only solution to raising animals and never having to deal with a dead one. It was quite simplistic actually – don’t raise animals. That is the only way you can be guaranteed never to lose one. As much as I hate dead ones, I can’t imagine a spring without baby calves frolicking across the pasture or the gangly legs of a newborn colt trying to stand to nurse.

Our girls have already had a good dose of having to deal with and learn about the cycle of life. But the cycle of life doesn’t always make a complete circle, if you know what I mean. Some animals just go before they really should and all we can do is learn about ways we might have prevented the death, understand possible causes and try not to let it sober us to the many positive things going on in our operations. But that doesn’t always take away the pain of a loss, even for those of us who deal with it on a regular basis. For the city folks who might have to face putting the family pet to sleep, we may seem a little hard hearted. It’s not that we aren’t upset about the deaths that occur, it’s just that we know it is inevitable.

We have encountered several losses during the severe winter cold and into the wet spring that we felt were simply just the waste of a potentially great animal. Like the perfect little filly we rescued from the chilling rain and wind. We warmed her in the bathtub for half a day, reunited her with her mother and two days later they were outside enjoying the sunshine. She was retrieved from the mud around the hay ring by our oldest daughter only to suffer a fatal kick to the head from a jealous mare in the pen. What kind of justice is that?

Or perhaps I should mention the first-calf heifer that prolapsed giving birth. The girls fell asleep in the pickup as the veterinarian, two fellow ranchers and I spent half of the night putting her back together. We spent several hours searching for the calf we knew she had given birth to but were unable to find until the sun came up the following day. It was then too that we discovered that our surgery was too little, too late. So now we have a bottle calf to feed twice a day.

We haven’t even considered the baby goats that were born in sub-zero temperatures this February. Even though they were in the barn, if there were more than one born to a nanny she couldn’t get them cleaned off and warmed up in time to keep them alive. So we carted them to the house, warmed them up, tried to pair them back up with nannies that could feed multiples. We still ended up with two bottle goats to feed and a few dead ones piled by the door of the barn until we could haul them off.

So, as farmers and ranchers, we do accept that death is a part of our business but that doesn’t make it a pleasant experience. In general, farmers and ranchers are a conservative lot. We don’t like to waste much of anything so these unwarranted deaths are a little harder for us to deal with. If an animal is harvested and goes on to provide food and by-products for humans or pets, it is a more reasonable and logical conclusion to their life. But when they die and have to be trucked off to nearest rendering plant, it is simply just a waste.

In that same vein, we have a problem with the notion that animals should be wasted rather than have a purposeful end to their life. Whether you are wasting an animal that could provide nutrients for another living being or you are wasting the resources necessary to keep this animal alive, either way you are harboring something that could be put to a better use. And what happens when we save all of the unwanted horses? Who will feed them? Taxpayers will not want to foot the bill for long and the activists against horse slaughter have saved all the horses their refuges can hold. Where will feed come from for these horses? Hay prices are at near record highs and pasture is in short supply due to the drought. And finally, when these horses do die a “natural death”, what will we do with all of the carcasses? Renderers are reluctant to accept them. Will landfills in New York City let us pile them there? Perhaps the Hollywood starlets who campaign to stop the harvest of horses will allow us to bury them on their rambling estates. Or not? Have they smelled many dead piles in the heat of the summer sun?

Death is death. If you don’t want to deal with it, get out of the business but by the same token it is not for someone else to demand that we make better use of our nation’s natural resources and then dictate policy that forces us to waste both feed and the potential products that could be generated by harvesting undesirable horses in this country. The double-edged sword is being used against us and it is just now slashing through the curtain that shields the world of agriculture. If we let it sweep forward, our entire industry is in jeopardy. And that would truly be a waste!

Animal Husbandry from Uncle Sam

I spent the past weekend in Big Sky, MT at the Young Agricultural Leadership Conference. Once again I felt the tremendous energy present when I am fortunate enough to accompany any group of young agriculturists. That energy is what fuels my desire to continue traveling the country. Many issues were addressed and potential solutions generated. However, I feel there is one that needs more attention in order to keep the momentum rolling in the right direction and that is the “eradication of Brucellosis” in Yellowstone Park.

Information was presented suggesting that the presence of Brucellosis in wildlife is not a problem but there is a chronic disease problem in the bison herd. Widely recognized by many as a true success story, the once nearly extinct bison are now plentiful and the largest herd of free roaming bison does indeed reside in Yellowstone Park. With that said, positive news recently came from Wyoming as the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service amended the state’s Brucellosis designation to Class Free from Class A. The Class Free status is based on a state finding not Brucellosis in cattle for one full year.

As hard as it might be to believe there are individuals among us that believe the bison would be best off if man didn’t attempt to interfere. This misguided thought needs to be eradicated as well. Every American citizen stands to benefit if the great bison herd of the Yellowstone were free of this population crippling disease. Mary A. Bomar, President Bush's nominee to head the National Park Service, recently said "Systematic vaccination of elk and bison will, over the long term, reduce disease prevalence in elk and bison populations, especially if vaccine technology and methods for remote vaccine delivery to free-ranging wildlife are improved." I agree completely but would add that sooner is better than later.

Obviously cattlemen adjacent to Yellowstone stand to benefit from the complete eradication of Brucellosis but I think the urgency should be felt by every family that enjoys visiting Yellowstone Park as a vacation destination. The healthier the bison population is, the more animals there are to view and enjoy. It is reported there are more and more bison interacting with park goers on the roads. In fact Al Nash, Yellowstone's director of public affairs was quoted as saying "There are the occasional parents out there who want to photograph their child with or on a bison.” I’m fairly sure those parents aren’t aware of the fact that there have been cases of Brucellosis transmission from animals to humans.

My recent trip to Big Sky country confirmed that most people enjoy traveling with their family dog. Dogs are also susceptible to Brucellosis and it would not be difficult to for Rover to come in contact with bison mucus. Since more and more Americans treat Rover like a kid, it would be easy for the disease to be transferred from canine to human. Is all of this likely? Probably not but it is more likely than some park visitor getting mad cow disease from consuming beef and look at all the new regulations beef producers are footing the bill for thanks to unscientific scare tactics leveled against the industry.

I am no way, shape or form attempting to create unnecessary fear for park vacationers but I am trying to emphasize that everyone has a vested interest in accelerating the eradication of Brucellosis in the herds of livestock owned by the U.S. Government. Every reputable livestock owner in the country would implement any reasonable measure possible to improve the health of his or her own herd. Should Uncle Sam be any different?

With all that said, I find this New York Times article to be an even greater threat to the future of American agriculture:

Ethanol is feeding hot market for farmland

While much of the nation worries about a slumping real estate market, people in Midwestern farm country are experiencing exactly the opposite. Take, for instance, the farm here - nearly 80 acres of corn and soybeans off a gravel road in a universe of corn and soybeans - that sold for $10,000 an acre at auction this spring, a price that astonished even the auctioneer.

In central Illinois, prime farmland is selling for about $5,000 an acre on average, up from just over $3,000 an acre five years ago, a study showed. In Nebraska, meanwhile, land values rose 17% in the first quarter of this year over the same time last year, the swiftest such gain in more than a quarter century, said Jason R. Henderson, an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank in Kansas City.

Now, don't get me wrong. I think that the number of young people engaged in farming is the challenge. While this article lays the blame on hands of ethanol mandates, I see the problem much bigger and more complex. Investors were seeking farmland ownership long before the ethanol rage, causing land values to increase beyond what farming could return. Here is one such example from my home state of Nebraska.

Turner's land holdings keep increasing
The 100-year tenure of the McMurtrey Family at a pioneer ranch in Cherry County ended June 26 with a public referee auction at Valentine.

The real issue is the mindset of our young people believing there is no opportunity for them. I stated on Rural Route this week that the opportunities are greater than ever for young people who WANT to farm. The average age of the U.S. farmer, combined with their kids leaving the farm, creates the opportunity for sweat equity positions and purchase after a number of years working in the said operation.

I have not asked for permission to reprint so I will withhold the author's name, but here is one response I received as a result of that comment. I strongly disagree with his sentiments. What is your opinion?

Once again Trent has completely missed the mark. I have heard him espouse this before. He thinks there are legions of aging farmers who are looking for a young person to take over their farm. The fact is 99% of these farmers are only interested in selling their farm to the highest bidder and even if they want someone in particular to take over their place, it is at full market value plus a little more if they can get it.The only real issue they have is how to beat the IRS out of the tax bill. If they could figure this out, they would quit in droves. I am sure every older farmer you approach would be happy to hear that you are willing to take over the labor aspects of their farm, but when you get to the part that we then are going to split up the profits and you are going to let me buy you out at a reasonable price and reasonable terms, the deal is off. Greed is rampant is every aspect of our society and farmers are no different.

As to the question of who will take these operations over. We have seen in the past that existing operators just get larger and I believe this trend will continue and accelerate.

Trent needs to take off the rose-colored glasses.

Trent
I have to wonder who wrote that letter to you about the greed of farmers...was it Kyle? :)
Anyway, I wrote Kyle on Monday about this when I heard it on RR...While I'd like to think that young men and women who say they want to farm are willing to put in the sweat and debt to get there, I am now wondering if they will do just about anything to farm, like they claim. Or are they donning rose colored glasses thinking of farming as a romantic lifestlyle. This lasts until they see how much debt they have to go into, how much sweat they have to produce for a pittance. AND if they have to relocate, are their spouses willing to follow them?

From inside the factory, farming looks grand as they watch the local crop farmer meet his buddies at the coffee shop every other morning or drive around in brand new pick up trucks, or head to the local tractor show with his newly restored John Deere B. Or when they see how much equipment they own without seeing the payment book. Or when they look at the century old farmhouse all decorated up with a spouse inside cooking a hearty meal with a smile on her face. No, they don't see what's behind the pastoral scene: the sleepless nights, the broken fingers, the dead animals, the broken tractors, the overdue notes and the aged face that is 20 years older than it should be.


As I look at what I just wrote, I wonder to myself why every morning and every night I head out to a hot barn full of hot cows to sweat like construction worker for not enough money to pay my bills at the end of the month. Why do I do it? I think it's simply what's in you...just like Hank Vogler says, that wonderful mutant gene that we have and can't amputate. It's in your blood that no blood transfusion can take care of. Part of it is that you just have it or you don't....the other part is the support you receive from you parents and peers and then consequently from your spouse.


The sky is the limit for a man with a good mom, OR wife behind him...supporting him, respecting him and loving him.

Melissa Hart
North Adams, MI

Trent,
I just figured out how to keep Loos Tales from being blocked by our server......
Whomever it was that said you were off the mark, is in a sad state of mind. Pessimistic and a "glass that's 1/2 empty" mentality.. As someone that has been experiencing just such an opportunity (sweat equity) for well over a decade, they couldn't be further from the truth.
I and now my family are very fortunate in our partnership. As you know, we are in an area marked for development. But, we have an aging partner (81 years) that wants this farm to remain as such, just because she cherishes the rural/farm lifestyle. She turns away Realtors every couple weeks. Her property has an extremely high value, but she is from a different time period, and not greedy.
We are very lucky to have an opportunity to work our way into an "Agricultural Nestegg" while beginning from zilch, zero, nothing. All because this kind lady saw something in us she liked and knew she could count on. Integrity, character, diligence, work ethic, caretaking, compassion, kindness, stewardship, love and parenting are terms in which we inherently believe.
I am sorry that people like this miss the trees while viewing the forest......
Keep up the good work,

Chuck Miller
Columbia, MO

Trent,
I read Loos Lipps this a.m. and seen what the comment by a listener about "old guys dont care and want $ and no taxes". I assume he was a younger guy like myself. I do see his point though. Recently a dairy sold here for 15k+/ac to a "berry farm"(and ..other "cash" crops). The dairyman spent the last 6 years grooming his son-in-law to take over. Then when the boy went into the banker to start the process of purchase the banker said "...the farm sold last month were you been?". My cousin (the son-in-law) was devastated. Years of 60hr weeks and 40hr pay wasted. Hours of picking the right genetic now all slaughterd on the buy out. Now this is rare that the old fellow was sucha s.o.b. but it is his farm he built from nothing 30 years ago. He told me that he could nevr pencil the kid makig payments to him b/c of his debt load and retireing like he wanted. Your reader is right about 20% of the time I would think. The older generation worked harder and dirtier than my generation and wants the rewards for their dilligence. Who does not want full price? Few farmers would rather have big money than a strong legacy. Now if the family I wrote of would of started a buyout plan 6 years ago they all probly could of got what they wanted. $ to retire and a lift to get started. The # one reason we see dairies fail in familis around here if flat out lack of famiy communcation and planning. I know most farmers would rather see their next of kin farm but I think most think "why do I want them to go though this crap?". Most of us would rather see hay/corn fields than houses on our property's horizons.

See You
Troy Lenssen
Wa.

This is my response to the comment recently received by Trent Loos on the future of youth in agriculture:

I’m a cattle rancher studying Animal Sciences/Ag Communications at South Dakota State University. Although my parents farm isn’t large enough for me to return to, I hope to one day be able to have a farm of my own. There is simply no better way to raise a family, and providing food and fiber for the world is one of the most rewarding careers any kid could ever dream of doing.

Unfortunately, getting into farming and ranching is a greater challenge than ever before as small farms are sucked up by corporate operations making it seemingly impossible to get started in the business. Land prices have outrageously skyrocketed, operating costs have accelerated, and there are careers outside of this industry with greater earning power.

As a young person, I realize the challenges of getting into the agriculture industry; however, this is my passion. It is quite disheartening to hear from another farmer that greed outweighs the desire to help young people continue the American farming tradition. Trent Loos doesn’t need to use rose-colored glasses to recognize that there are young people out there with the desire to own a farm and there are aging farmers with the heart to create opportunities for us.

Regardless of the challenges facing young people with an interest in agriculture, we are the future of food security and we will take a role in its success. God Bless any veteran farmer willing to help.

Amanda Nolz
Mitchell, SD

I listen to your program whenever I'm planting,
spraying, or combining. I thoroughly enjoy your
segments. I must tell you I am a young farmer from
TAYLOR North Dakota. You've been interviewing and
mentioning people from Taylor this week and I find it
refreshing to hear people from this area on the radio.
I know the Larsen Bros, Orville, and Jay Elkin. I
farm next to Jay in several locations. Just wanted to
thank you for stopping by our small community. I am a
4th generation farmer and I am in my late 20's. I
farm with my dad for several reasons. 1. I've been to
many, many land sales and I just can't compete with
the out of state hunters, or guys like Jay Elkin, who
are large farmers and have the financials to pay a
premium. I have nothing against the large farmer, he
has to do what he has to do to stay alive. As Jay
said in the NBC interview, it takes a lot of acres
just to pay for the inputs. 95% of the land I farm, I
rent which leads me to my second reason. 2. Land rents
have increased dramatically over the last couple of
years, so inputs are rising every year. It is nice to
see a good strong commodity price, but this year we
are facing sever drought, again. I believe it is an
isolated area North of Taylor, which happens to be
where all my land is located. This is the 3rd year of
drought for me. Even through these drought years, I
still look forward to everyday and I can't wait to get
out of bed and go outside and breath the fresh air and
start my day in, (as you say), my little piece of
heaven!!
I must tell you, my only fear is that if rents, land
values, and other inputs keep increasing and we can't
break this drought cycle, I may be forced to move on
to something else. I have a family, so if I can't
provide, I will have to find something else to do. I
love what I do more than anything and I will continue
on as long as I can. 3. Equipment. Who can afford
to go out and buy a line of equipment necessary for
production when they rent most or all of the land??
No one. Good used equipment is hard to find, its even
harder to find the money to buy the used equipment.
New equipment is basically unreachable.
4. There is nothing better than working with your
family on the farm. Everyone works in harmony
together and that makes efficiency. Efficiency is
what makes a farm successful. If you don't have it
your not maximizing your potential. It is virtually
impossible to do it alone!! You need some help and
who better than your family.
Once again, thanks for putting Taylor on the map.
Sincerely,
Chris Bernhardt
Young Farmer from good old Taylor.

Flushing out the facts

I am quite sure that most of you will be startled at best when I start this but here goes. The Michael Vick situation stands to cause all property owners serious harm. I received an email from a friend of mine while he was riding in a cab in DC. It said, “Trent, I just heard a guy on the radio talking about the Vick dog fighting case. He said, “Explain to me why dog fighting is illegal but rodeos are okay?” In the unlikely event that you missed the story, Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick has been indicted on charges related to dog fighting. Sixty dogs remain in custody with officials. I do not support or believe we should fight dogs for sport but this incident is being used to eliminate the rights of dog owners, period. One other side note, he has been charged not convicted in the court system that is.

First off, you need to recognize that animal rights organizations could not have a better crop to harvest than the bumper crop of 2007. There are incidents aplenty that they can use for fodder for their propaganda machine and generate more cash toward their goal of the ultimate demise of animal agriculture. At the same time, the American Pet Food Manufacturers Association recently released a report indicating that Americans will once again spent a record amount on their dogs in 2007.

Americans now spend $41 billion a year on their pets--more than the gross domestic product of all but 64 countries in the world. That's double the amount shelled out on pets a decade ago, with annual spending expected to hit $52 billion in the next two years, according to Packaged Facts, a consumer research company based in Rockville, Md. That puts the yearly cost of buying, feeding, and caring for pets in excess of what Americans spend on the movies ($10.8 billion), playing video games ($11.6 billion), and listening to recorded music ($10.6 billion) combined. "People are no longer satisfied to reward their pet in pet terms," argues Bob Vetere, president of the American Pet Products Manufacturers Assn. (APPMA). "They want to reward their pet in human terms." That means hotels instead of kennels, braces to fix crooked teeth, and frilly canine ball gowns. Pet owners are becoming increasingly demanding consumers who won't put up with substandard products, unstimulating environments, or shoddy service for their animals. But the escalating volume and cost of services, especially in the realm of animal medicine, raises ethical issues about how far all this loving should go.

The demand for pet neuticals is also going through the roof. What, you might ask, are neuticals? Nueticals are artificial testicals that dog owners are putting in their neutered dogs in order to maintain the self-esteem of their dog. Not only do you pay to have the testicles removed, now people are shelling out up to $1000 per dog to replace their testosterone so they aren’t intimidated at the park by intact males!

So, with all of that taken into consideration, when someone like Vick, a very public figure, is charged with the crime of letting a dog be a dog, we should all take notice. Do you really believe that someone who pays $1000 for their dog’s self esteem would understand you taking your hunting dog out for a hunt. “He’ll be close to you when you fire the gun and oh, that must really hurt his ears. How you ever make him swim in that pond or lake to retrieve the bird you shot. To top it all off, you don’t even let him eat the bird.”

How about the cattle working dogs that are born with the natural desire and further trained to chase cows, biting them on the legs and risking a swift kick to the head. How humane can that possibly be in the eyes of these radicals? My point is that all of these actions, including dog fighting, are natural behaviors of dogs. Yet the public outcry is coming because Vick has not been treating his dog like a kid.

The Humane Society of the United States and PETA stand to make millions on this bit of free publicity. We, as dog owners, stand to lose more rights. While I don’t expect any of you to stand up for Vick or dog fighting, I suggest that we are in for a real dogfight ourselves simply to maintain the basic relationship that people have had with their pets for generations. You don’t need to be much of a hunting dog to flush out those facts, but it’s time we herd the masses toward the direction of common sense instead of letting them be led by these radical ideals.