Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Capital press. (Salem, OR) 19??-current | View Entire Issue (April 24, 2015)
April 24, 2015 CapitalPress.com 9 Oregon NRCS encourages no-till farming in Sherman County By ERIC MORTENSON Capital Press Sherman County wheat producers have until May 15 to apply for funding in- tended to encourage them to take up no-till farming. A $100,000 grant from the USDA’s Natural Re- sources Conservation Ser- vice will pay producers $9.97 an acre, said Kristie Coelsch, the NRCS district conservationist in Moro, Ore. The program is aimed at reducing erosion. Wheat is about all there is in Sher- man County, and the thin soils sometimes blow off in the northern part of the county and run off in the Eric Mortenson/Capital Press Sherman County wheat grower Darren Padget, shown in this 2014 file photo, is among those trying no-till farming under an NRCS payment program. rest. It is Columbia Plateau country, lying cold and dry in the rain shadow of the Cascades, with slopes and draws rolling down to the river. The county gets little moisture, 10 to 12 inch- es annually, but rain over frozen, sloping ground can take soil with it. No-till methods increase organic matter, retain water better than bare ground and build soil health, Coelsch said. About 40 percent of the county is no-till now, and the NRCS goal is to increase that to 80 percent within five years. Farmers are beginning to get on board, Coelsch said. “All of our producers want to be good stewards,” she said. “Some don’t want to be the first adopter in case it flops.” The potential drawbacks include a drop in yield the first couple years, and no- till may require buying or renting a new seed drill to punch through the stubble. Without tillage, farmers are using more glyphosate to control weeds. The practice is likely to become more controversial, as much of the public associates gly- phosate with Monsanto, Roundup Ready and GMO crops — lightning rods for critics. Darren Padget, who farms 3,000 acres in Sher- man County, said he was on the fence about no-till but decided to enroll about 1,000 acres into the pro- gram. Farmers over the decades have already tried more traditional erosion control methods such as ter- racing, he said “It’s all been done, now we’re looking for the next thing,” Padget said. “No-till is the next thing on the list.” Padget said glyphosate, like it or not, is necessary. “You cannot do dryland wheat without it,” he said. “The weeds take over. With- out glyphosate, wind erosion and water erosion would just be huge, huge, huge.” For more information, contact the USDA’s Moro Service Center, 541-565- 3551, or email Coelsch at Kristie.coelsch@or.usda. gov. NRCS program infor- mation is at www.or.nrcs. usda.gov. Oregon bill proposes predator control districts Lawmakers are considering several predator bills By MATEUSZ PERKOWSKI Capital Press SALEM — Certain rural landowners would be subject to increased tax rates to pay for predator control under legislation being considered by Oregon lawmakers. House Bill 3188 would allow landowners to petition counties to establish special tax districts in which proper- ties would be assessed up to $1 an acre to raise funds for predator control conducted by USDA’s Wildlife Services. Proponents of the bill claim it’s necessary to pro- tect the livestock industry and compensate for reduced federal timber payments to counties. “This bill is driven by the landowners,” said Rep. Dal- las Heard, R-Roseburg, who sponsored the bill. Ranchers try to use fenc- es and guard dogs to fend off cougars, coyotes and other predators but these strategies aren’t effective in all situa- tions, said Dan Dawson, a sheep producer in Douglas County, Ore. “Sometimes we need to target the animals that are causing the problem,” he said during an April 16 hearing be- fore the House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Re- sources. During an April 21 work session, the committee unan- imously voted to refer the bill to the House floor with a “do pass” recommendation. Livestock production is a major economic contributor in rural Oregon but predators take a major toll on ranchers’ profits, proponents of HB 3188 say. “There are some areas of the ranch where we no longer run sheep” due to predation problems, said David Briggs, a rancher near Myrtle Creek, Ore. Proponents said HB 3188 would provide a stable fund- ing source and the special dis- tricts would be overseen by county commissioners, who would decide whether or not to approve such programs. “This is an opt-out pro- An adult female cougar with a malfunctioning GPS collar is treed in the Mount Emily area of Northeast Oregon so the collar can be replaced. Courtesy of Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife gram. It’s not mandatory,” said Ron Jort, who testified in favor of the bill. Opponents of the legis- lation claim current mecha- nisms for funding predator control are sufficient and there’s no reason to add more bureaucracy to the system. Predators do not respect geographic boundaries and decisions about management should not be made at the lo- cal level, according to oppo- nents. Bill centers on conflicts between mines, farmland By MATEUSZ PERKOWSKI Capital Press SALEM — Farmers are worried that legislation will make it easier to develop mines on high-value farmland in Ore- gon. Mining companies argue that House Bill 2666 will require opponents to provide objective evidence that farming practices will be adversely affected by new or expanded mines. Obtaining permits for mines requires hiring a multitude of specialists and attorneys at great cost, but much of the arguments against mining aren’t factual- ly-based, according to propo- nents of HB 2666. “We end up with boxes of conflicts we end up dealing with,” said Richard Angstrom, president of the Oregon Con- crete & Aggregate Producers Association. The exact language of HB 2666 may change due to pro- posed amendments, but propo- nents claim it will help counties settle clashes between agricul- ture and mining. “There’s got to be a process for local governments to follow to resolve the conflict,” Ang- strom said. Only 2,500 acres of the 2.8 million acres of high-value farmland in Oregon’s Wil- lamette Valley — roughly one-tenth of a percent — are currently dedicated to mining, according to the association. The Oregon Farm Bureau and several growers testified against the bill during an April 16 legislative hearing, argu- ing it will hinder farmers from participating in the public deci- sion-making process. The legislation would shift the burden of proof to farmers, who often can’t hire attorneys and specialists to validate their concerns about dust, noise and traffic, said Mary Anne Nash, public policy counsel for OFB. Farmers already must back up their arguments against mines with evidence, she said. “It does have to be more than just a bald assertion.” Aggregate producers have a 97 percent success rate in win- ning approval for mines, so the bill is unnecessary, she said. “We view House Bill 2666 as a solution in search of a prob- lem.” Bruce Chapin, a hazelnut farmer near Keizer, Ore., dis- puted the notion that growers are too easily able to block mine development under cur- rent law. “My observation has been just the opposite,” he said. “When the miners apply, the miners get the permit no matter how much opposition.” During an April 21 work session, HB 2666 was re- ferred to the House Rules Committee, allowing ti to stay alive for further discus- sion. 17-1/#5 17-7/#7