Apr 01 2018

Cowboy-isms … & Sexual Harassment

by Caren Cowan, Executive Director,
New Mexico Cattle Grower’s Association
Read this article & more in New Mexico Stockman Magazine

In these days of hyper sensitivity about real or perceived sexual harassment, there are things that cowboys need to be aware of. Not everyone appreciates or understands the statement that “someone has been rode hard and put up wet” the way you do.

A little web research indicates that the problem is that this cowboy-ism was hijacked in the 1970s that put a whole different connotation to the statement. I need not do much more explanation.

It seems that there are a lot of terms we in the West use with great regularity that we might reconsider how they sound to an urbanite or a millennial. Cowboys have a way of looking at things a little differently than the rest of the world. Their wisdom is simpler and more down to Earth, one website says.

  • If you get thrown from a horse, you have to get up and get back on, unless you landed on a cactus; then you have to roll around and scream in pain.
  • A cowboy is a man with guts and a horse.
  • If you climb in the saddle, be ready for the ride.
  • The horse stopped with a jerk – and the jerk fell off!
  • When in doubt, let your horse do the thinkin’.
  • Speak your mind, but ride a fast horse.
  • Don’t squat with your spurs on.
  • Don’t let your yearnings get ahead of your earnings.
  • Don’t dig for water under the outhouse.
  • Don’t go in if you don’t know the way out.
  • Don’t mess with something that ain’t bothering you.
  • Never drive black cattle in the dark.
  • Never approach a bull from the front, a horse from the rear or a fool from any direction.
  • Never miss a good chance to shut up.
  • Never slap a man who’s chewing tobacco.
  • If you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging.
  • It’s better to keep your mouth shut and look stupid than open it and prove it.
  • When you give a lesson in meanness to a critter or a person, don’t be surprised if they learn their lesson.

Nuff said.

Humane Society of the United States taking hard fall

Things just keep getting worse following the sexual harassment scandal at the Humane Society of the United States. Following the resignations of CEO Wayne Pacelle and Vice President Paul Shapiro earlier this year, the “charity” has now lost its accreditation from the Better Business Bureau’s charity-accreditation arm, the Wise Giving Alliance (BBB WGA), according to Humane Watch. This news comes after Charity Navigator downgraded its rating of HSUS to just 2 stars out of 4—including a lowly 1 star for financial metrics, indicative of financial waste at the nonprofit. Animal Charity Evaluators, which recommends animal-rights nonprofits, has formally rescinded their 2016 Standout recommendation of The Humane Society of the United States’ Farm Animal Protection Campaign.

While the BBB hasn’t issued a statement for the removal of HSUS’s accreditation, it’s safe to assume the HSUS board’s initial decision to retain Pacelle after its internal investigation turned up several credible accusations of sexual harassment was the impetus for BBB WGA to initiate a review.

HSUS’s accreditation drop should serve as a wakeup call to charity donors, according to Arizonan Mike Russell writing to KTARNEWS. Charities might not be what they seem.

To be clear HSUS is NOT the Humane Society of Arizona or any other state. HSUS pulls in $150,000,000 per year in part because they know that donors are giving, thinking that the money will funnel down to the state level. This is not the case. HSUS knows this is the intent of their donors yet lends very little help to the struggling animals.

HSUS is working in Arizona, gathering signatures for a ballot initiative that will leave animal population control up to the voters. It will also take that responsibility out of the hands of the trained biologists that are effectively managing healthy populations of more animal species than any other non-coastal state in the nation. They are masked sweetly as “Arizonans for Wildlife.”

It’s actually the HSUS operating under a different name. Once again, not what they seem. But the title “Arizonans for Wildlife” sounds like something that everyone in Arizona can get behind and HSUS knows that. They also know that rallying cries like “Arizonans for Wildlife” works almost as well as tugging at your heartstrings.

Heartstrings are tied to your purse strings. Getting to those heartstrings costs a lot of money. Producing ads for radio or TV is not cheap. The airtime on both mediums is even more expensive. But those ads that we see of scared, cold, and hungry puppy dogs work and nonprofits like HSUS know this. They will spend millions of donated dollars to draw in more donated dollars.

Charity Watch reports that HSUS spends $22 to raise $100. That’s a big chunk that could actually be used by local Humane Societies to save the scared, cold, and hungry puppy dogs that HSUS uses to tug at your purse string connected heartstrings.

If you have done some homework before giving to a charity…good for you. You are in a very small group of philanthropists. If you have not, don’t worry…you are not alone.

Doing the RIGHT homework means going the extra mile before donating. If you are thinking about heading over to the Better Business Bureau to check out your charitable target…you might want to read about the BBB coming under fire for receiving thousands from the charities that it rates.

Keep in mind that the BBB is a business and consumers are the product. The rated businesses are the BBB’s clients. Those stickers and web banners are bought by businesses that are paying membership to the BBB. Sites like Charity Navigator and Charity Watch seem to have their act together.

New Plan to Deal With Coyotes

But not in New Mexico or even the West. North Carolina is dealing with a growing coyote population across that state. The growth is most noticed in urban areas where one neighborhood has lost 22 cats and a Yorkie in a short period of time. Calls for coyote control are peaking because a coyote has attacked a 9-year-old girl.

Officials with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission say coyote attacks on people and pets are pretty rare – especially when the attacks are unprovoked. But they do admit they’re seeing a spike across the state.

The North Carolina General Assembly asked the wildlife commission to look at the impacts and threats coyotes have on people, pets, livestock and other wildlife. A new North Carolina report outlines ways to manage the coyote population. It focuses on educating people about the animals, ways to avoid coyote encounters altogether and handle them properly, and encourages legal hunting and trapping. Some people don’t think these measures go far enough.

“Instead of spending all those months coming up with ‘trying to educate us,’” said one resident. “We know all of that. They need to get a plan in place to get rid of the coyotes. They need to step up to the bat.”

She thinks coyotes are more than just a nuisance; she called them downright dangerous.

“They need to be dead, because they’re just going to multiply and multiply, and I hate to say that about an animal, but it’s an animal that’s attacking a child now,” she said.

Perhaps with the growing incidence of coyote attacks people can come to the conclusion that predator management is something that must be done routinely.

The Bitter Pill

On March 23, 2018 the New Mexico Legislative Finance Committee was presented with a report entitled “Program Evaluation: The Modern-Day Role of the Agriculture Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service.” The report is #18-02 and can be found on the Legislature’s website under the Legislative Finance Committee, which is an interim committee. We will soon put it up on the New Mexico Cattle Growers’ Association website along with some additional, clarifying information.

I encourage everyone to find and read the document, then consider the consequences of such negative view of one of New Mexico’s major industries and the lifeblood of the vast majority of the lands in this state. It probably isn’t too much to say that this report is an indictment of agriculture and the land grant university we depend on.

Ostensibly the report was requested because New Mexico State University’s Agricultural Experiment Stations (AES) and Cooperative Extension Service (CES) were not spending all of the funds available to them annually. In the case of AES, for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017, the entity spent about $5 million less than budgeted by the state. CES spent about the same amount less as well.

One who is charged with taking care of themselves and perhaps others might think that being thrifty or frugal might be an excellent quality. No so with government, the more you spend the more you get. That is a really scary thought when you consider that government spending is one of New Mexico’s top economic drivers.

But I digress. The Finance Committee wanted an in-depth review of the two areas of NMSU’s College of Agricultural, Consumer & Environmental Sciences (ACES) to determine if it could, in dry budget years sweep more funds from them. NMSU suffered some pretty severe sweeps since 2008.

Red lights started flashing on page two, where there is recommendation that AES and CES “need to be more responsive to the changing needs of all of New Mexicans, not just their traditional stakeholder communities.”

On page 23, the report notes “extension still focuses a significant portion of its financial resources and human capital on agriculture… despite agriculture only accounting for 2.6 percent of the total state employment and 1.3 percent of gross state product.” I don’t think those numbers are quite correct and will continue reaching, but even if agriculture only accounted for 2.5 percent of state employment, I think it is a pretty safe bet that 100 percent of the state’s people count on agriculture three or more times a day.

Not to be completely negative, on page 9 notes that AES and CES payments for “institutional support” to NMSU have grown approximately 500 percent between FY 2008 and FY 2017. This has been an issue that the New Mexico Cattle Growers’ Association (NMCGA) and others have complained bitterly and worked endlessly to stop. “Intuitional support” are the funds that the University skims from the various colleges and departments for using buildings, telephones and so on. As budgets were cut over the last nine years the intuitional charges have increased.

Page 7 waves a huge red flag where it says “Notably absent from … top funders are groups representing dairy and beef producers ad forage crop producers.” Further into the report there is a recommendation to eliminate support for these groups. Page 26 says CES should “consider conducting less agricultural research on established agricultural industries (e.g. forge crops, beef cattle) if associated commodity groups are unable to contribute meaningful monetary support for said research, and instead, focus its research agenda on nascent and emerging industries.” (Yes, I had to look up nascent.)

It was also interesting to learn that “home economics and household management are now not necessarily a core skill for managing a household.” (Page 22) Hello! How long would it take to do a Google search on “Foodies?” You know, the groups that are all about local foods, new recipes and refocusing on the home.

While assessing the need for Agricultural Experiments Stations is already underway, the report recommends that the College of ACES consider eliminating one-third of those stations to bring itself into line with peer organizations – like North Dakota State University, Oklahoma State University, Auburn University, Mississippi State University, Montana State University, University of Wyoming and Utah State University.

The report questioned the need for a new feed mill on campus where there is one in Clayton that needs repair. Sure, let’s figure out how much that feed will cost factoring in transportation costs.

But the topper on page 18 is the recommendation that CES administrators should conduct a feasibility study on potential fees for 4-H and other programing and develop clear guidelines for county offices on charging fees.”

I freely admit that I am reviewing this report through a very negative lens. Hopefully there is some value to all the work that has gone in to it. But I don’t see what can offset the issues I have mentioned.

Thankfully, the Legislative Finance Committee was filled with representatives and senators who do understand and appreciate the value of agriculture to New Mexico and the value of our land grant university. Most of them politely, yet firming offered their support to agriculture and NMSU.      

Source: New Mexico Stockman, April 2018