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