Following the big October blizzard, state veterinarian Dustin Oedekoven received reports from ranchers that about 23,000 cattle, sheep, horses, and bison had been lost in the storm. But the Rancher Relief Fund, which is soliciting donations to help West River ranchers recoup their losses, says the requests they've received for assistance put livestock losses closer to 43,000.
Why the difference?
What we found is people... didn't report... for a number of reasons. They just didn’t want to report, didn’t want anybody to know about it. In some cases people felt bad because if... they lost less than their neighbor did, they just didn’t feel justified in calling in and reporting anything, or in some cases, if they lost a lot, and they had some pride, they just didn’t want that to be reflected in any way [Dustin Oedekoven, interview with Jeri Thomas, "State Veterinarian Says Atlas' Livestock Toll Over 40,000 Based on Rancher Relief Fund Reports," Dakota Radio Group, 2014.02.11].
Note the obvious reason that Dr. Oedekoven politely omits: his office wasn't offering ranchers money for reporting their losses. Remember: ranchers are our neighbors, but they're also rational capitalists.
President Obama: buy out these losers and rewild the West.
What is so horribly wrong with reporting to Dr. Oedekoven the truth at the time of their losses?
It might also have something to do with a lack of trust in the SD Dept of Ag.......
Or ranchers were too busy fishing dead cattle out of creeks and dams and were still looking for cattle that never showed up and are now presumed dead to take the time to fill out reports to the SD Dept of Ag. Or the SD Dept of Ag dropped the ball and didn't do a good job collecting data.
hey Nick, I'll go along with your last sentence!!!! The dept. of ag dropped the ball and didn't do good job collecting data!!!! What is that secretary of agricultures name???
rational capitalists . . . or are they opportunists turning in a report for a buck. The federal government trained the agricultural federal welfare queens so why should we expect different behavior from them. How hard can it be with insurance available, with weather forecasting, with the ready availability of materials to provide wind-break shelters, etc., to provide for themselves.
Thank you John. With all that deep understanding and wisdom you must be the most successful person in all of agriculture......
This is the way they are; proud and compassionate but mostly proud "felt bad because if... they lost less than their neighbor did, they just didn’t feel justified in calling in and reporting anything, or in some cases, if they lost a lot, and they had some pride, they just didn’t want that to be reflected in any way"
So, these negligent operators are going to get $5 million from donations and government relief then claim they're self-reliant? Moral hazards must be right next to the sand traps on the golf course.
South Dakota: Land of Infinite Vagrancy.
I find it difficult to believe that ranchers could be 87% off on their losses from the original terrible losses figured after the October thaw and what was then being seen and counted. Now, we have had a tough winter after that blizzard and there may be animals that have perished since that blizzard, but those losses should be separate as they may not have had a thing to do with the October blizzard. Something seems not quite right here, and it looks like we are getting fleeced.
Giving money to these producers is like paying TransCanada to leak diluted bitumen into the Missouri River or to BP to spill oil in the Gulf of Mexico.