I grew up on a Texas sheep ranch and I feel that sheep ranchers depend too much on the subsidy check. For about forty years running, until 1992, the wool and mohair incentive was probably the largest agriculture subsidy. When it was phased out completely in ’94, the sheep ranchers quit too. The numbers got so low that the government thought the “ewe lamb retention” program of 2002 would help. The $18 per ewe lamb retained for breeding helped bring the numbers up just a little. I don’t why it’s called “sheep meat” program. I guess the feedlot man complained and got some of the money.??? Anyway, when the ewe lamb retention program plays out then the sheep rancher sells out and finds another government program like EQIP. EQIP will improve the land for big $$ deer hunting, quail habitat, or for big $$ real estate marketing.

I’m a fourth generation sheep man and at 40 years old, I’m probably the youngest. My primary income comes outside of ranching. I do not accept subsidies. I like sheep and they survive well in the semi arid region where I live. Given a little room, a lamb can get fat in the desert. I am very capable and I’ve got a lot to offer youngsters but there’s little opportunity for me and the younger folks because of current land use trends. Whether you are the large scale cotton farmer, or the wealthy recreational landowner, that’s who reaps the greatest rewards to. However, I’m fortunate to have some ranchland and I don’t need the government to help me raise sheep and I think if you’re a recreational landowner then you ought to want to provide that wildlife habitat without government help.

While today’s subsidies are extreme, it’s also a segregation of ag production and conservation. One pasture may be crammed full of cattle while the neighboring place is an overgrown, fallow thicket overrun with coyotes.

A diversified sustainable style of agriculture that produces and protects at the same time can exist. I wish there was more focus in that direction.

Mr. Allen, I could not agree more. We need policies for working lands that make economic and conservation sense. What do you think such policies would look like for sheep ranchers in your area?

America is a lamb deficit country. The U.S. sheep industry deserves protection against future trade agreements that could be detrimental to American lamb. I believe the sheep industry will be okay as long as the U.S. herd maintains. We must maintain, though. At present, the necessary imports are not really hurting live American lamb.
The economic situation in Australia/New Zealand determines wool prices. If I want to compete in the wool market, then I need to concentrate on quality, fineness, and preparation. Niche marketing might help, though I’ve never tried it, it sounds interesting. To sum it up, I feel that lamb and wool commodity subsidies are not necessary.

Currently, I think the American Sheep Industry(ASI) is spending its time trying to get the USDA to start up “Livestock Risk Protection: Lamb” subsidy. The numbers game I wish for is more people eating lamb. My favorite success story is at Angelo State University in San Angelo, Tx. The ASU meat lab is an Ag Science offering for students and they sell all types of meat to the public. It’s our opportunity to “buy local.” They emphasize lamb cuts too. I wish more colleges could get a meat lab. I believe this in itself can help the sheep/goat industry.
ASI concedes that the only consumer of lamb is on the East Coast and I don’t like that attitude. I feel that a new LRP: Lamb program will only promote mediocrity in our lamb product, just like the lucrative old wool act did not improve quality. The ethnics have really helped the lamb market and maybe we have a younger generation that hasn’t heard the Army mutton stories of old.

The cattle business has been good money. However, in the last 10 years I’ve noticed a dependence on livestock feed assistance programs. Cow herds placed in country more suitable for sheep and goats will guarantee a large feed bill. Likewise, piling up any pasture with cows will result in piles of feed to sustain them. I believe feed assistance subsidies have resulted in some poor ranch management practices.
However, where I live, the land use trend is rapidly changing to wildlife management; completely void of ag production. This plays a big role in confining the livestock industry in Texas. Texas law allows wildlife management to receive the “ag exempt” property tax advantage. Sadly, wealthy absentee landowners are going down that road of game fences, practicing unnatural wildlife husbandry, and feeding processed protein supplements to herds of deer or exotics.
Even disastered cropland laying idle for two months waiting for the crop insurance adjustment could have fattened lambs. Some of the same could be said for CRP lands where I live. I believe in CRP, but only where it’s truly needed. Today, CRP is used in real estate marketing and hunting. It’s double dipping.

I wish the government had some kind system where operators and landowners had to earn “sustainability points.” Rewards could go toward ranch management and conservation improvements simultaneously. I would rather have help with a brand new net wire fence and cement floor shearing shed than a per head paycheck.

I personally know of farmers that make a large sum of money from the Rich Mans welfare program, and have no problem with weather, storms, etc., and brag about taking all they can get---When will their be more national news on this. So many people I talk with do not even know what is going on with the farm commodity payments.