Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Capital press. (Salem, OR) 19??-current | View Entire Issue (May 15, 2015)
6 CapitalPress.com May 15, 2015 Editorials are written by or approved by members of the Capital Press Editorial Board. All other commentary pieces are the opinions of the authors but not necessarily this newspaper. Opinion Editorial Board Publisher Editor Managing Editor Mike O’Brien Joe Beach Carl Sampson opinions@capitalpress.com Online: www.capitalpress.com/opinion O ur V iew Extension transforms itself for the 21st century T he recession that dealt a body blow to the U.S. economy left its mark on the budgets of land grant universities and state and federal government research programs. Extension programs did not escape. Extension administrators across the nation could have tried to maintain current programs, trimming their budgets and hoping that funding would return when the economy recovered. Or they could reinvent the Extension Service for the 21st century, replacing an outdated model that had been in place for decades and was reaching the end of its useful life. Most administrators chose the latter. At Washington State University, for example, the Extension Service has undertaken an intensive process that has generated high-tech, web-based tools that help the state’s farmers make the tough decisions. Using WSU Extension tools, a farmer can see how individual wheat varieties performed in various parts of the state, when to irrigate their crops and when to expect frost. These and other features are available to every farmer. This is not your father’s Extension Service. “County agents are a thing of the past,” WSU Extension director Rich Koenig told the Capital Press. In their place is a battalion of specialists who concentrate on high-dollar crops such as small grains, tree fruit, vegetables and grapes. Though other crops are still supported, it is with fewer people. Budget cuts were the driving force of the changes, but they most likely would have happened anyway. Times change, and so does technology. With the Internet and other high-tech tools available, the old Extension model would have become outdated no matter what happened to the budgets. At WSU, state and county contributions to Extension shrank. To make up for the reductions, commodity groups stepped forward and provided funds to pay for the research they need to stay competitive in the world market. For example, the Washington Grain Commission and the state’s tree fruit industry have directly funded tens of millions of dollars for research through the university and Extension. Similar transformations have been taking place in Western states such as Idaho, Oregon and California, as growers have recognized the need for research on their crops and provided more funding directly to Extension. Now that the economy is improving, don’t expect Extension to return to the old model. Because of budget cuts at the federal level and inflation and other increased costs, the overall footprint of the Extension Service has shrunk by about one-third. Expect Extension to continue to work with farmers and ranchers to provide them with the information they need to prosper. They’ll do that face-to-face, through the Internet or through crop advisers and agronomists, who will work with them to provide the most up- to-date information in a timely and useful manner. An overlooked strategy to obtain water By BRUCE COLBERT For the Capital Press F Rik Dalvit/For the Capital Press O ur V iew Ranchers can’t wait for ‘thousands’ of wolves T he Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission has begun, at least tentatively, the process to remove the gray wolf from the state’s endangered species list. The state’s wolf plan calls for beginning the delisting process when the state has at least four breeding pairs for three consecutive years. Oregon reached that standard at the end of 2014, when eight breeding pairs were counted. Four breeding pairs were confirmed in 2013 and six in 2012. But ranchers who thought reaching that goal was an automatic trigger for delisting are disappointed. While the commission last month voted unanimously to start the process, it has also asked the Department of Fish and Wildlife to present it with information about delisting wolves throughout the state, delisting wolves in only the eastern part of the state, or leaving them on the endangered species list. Ranchers, who bear much of the expense of literally holding the wolves at bay and receive only partial compensation when they are unsuccessful, feel betrayed. While there has been coffee shop talk about taking care of predatory wolves on the sly — “shoot, shovel, shut up” — illegal takings appear to have been few and far between. No wolves have been killed while attacking or chasing livestock in Oregon. ODFW killed four for chronic depredation on livestock. Five were illegally shot since 2000O one died when hit by a vehicle. Officially, ranchers lost to wolves 76 sheep, 36 cattle and two goats from 2009 through 2014. Ranchers say the total is higher than confirmed because many animals just disappear. Delisting would give ranchers more latitude in protecting their animals. “We lived up to our promise,” said rancher Todd Nash, wolf committee chairman for the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association. “We wholly expect the agency and this committee to live up to theirs.” But environmentalists have different ideas, and are pushing the state to keep wolves on the endangered species list. Most believe there are about 100 wolves in Oregon. Conservationists say there needs to be many more to protect the population from being wiped out by disease or other calamity. Amaroq Weiss, West Coast wolf organizer with the Center for Biological Diversity, needs “on the magnitude of thousands” of wolves before they are delisted. Really? A hundred may not be enough, but a thousand is too many. All of God’s creatures have the right to thrive, and wolves have a place in the wilds of the West. But that doesn’t mean that wolves should be allowed to make a free meal of cattle and sheep on the range, whether grazing on public or private land. And we don’t think ranchers should have to wait until there are thousands of wolves lining up for dinner before the rules of engagement change. Readers’ views No thanks to cameras for rural police On communist day this year, May 1, the national media announced an ini- tial $20 million federally funded program to provide body cameras for (get this) “small and medium-sized police departments” around the nation. Do we the people re- main complacent and un- awares still? Can we not see and feel the tentacles of this federally spawned totalitarian power ever- more enticing, gripping and controlling our lives? If we don’t see it, why do we not see it? Why do we contin- ue so overly trusting? What is it that keeps us so glib- ly unconcerned amidst it all? The point here is not so much to argue whether po- lice body cameras should or should not be, my concern being much, much broader than that. Please just sit up and take notice, brothers and sisters! This whole rising ambiance and culture that alleges ubiquitous “crime threats, terrorism, etc.” is an evil ploy. It has been purposely created, then de- liberately driven daily into our psyche to keep people everywhere afraid, so as to more easily lure us all into their monstrous, ever-tight- ening web of control. Idahoans, in particular: At what point will you arise together and say “Enough! Back off, you lying con- nivers! We neither want nor need your intrusions. If anything, we would go back — all the way back — to where a simple kindly cop walked his neighborhood, sometimes even with lit- tle children hanging on his leg.” That “Norman Rock- well” scene used to suffice for America, and can suffice still, if only all peace-lov- ing (and peace-demand- ing) locals will insist upon it. Let us simply refuse to buy into their manu- factured “terror threat” lie. I might add that if to- day’s police officers were trained to look and act like true peace officers, far few- er cameras would be need- ed, for far fewer incidences needing camera recording would ever arise. Cameras for huge city ar- eas? Maybe. For our small, peaceful, rural towns? No, thank you! Carol Asher Kamiah, Idaho armers and other water users can adopt a proven strategy to obtain a reliable water supply. This overlooked strategy was developed by envi- ronmentalists in the 1980s. Environmentalists in Con- gress in 1980 were in trouble, and therefore their programs were in trouble. Environmen- talists realized that if they could develop a strategy to select leg- islators, they would have an eas- ier time winning battles in Con- gress. Environmentalists could participate at the beginning of the process of creating law. Environmentalists decided that half measures were insuffi- cient. In 1982, one organization endorsed 140 candidates for the House and the Senate, raised a quarter of a million dollars for their campaigns, and envi- ronmentalists worked on cam- paigns. Around three-quarters of their candidates won. Politicians increasingly came to value the endorsement of environmen- talists. Laws created federal agencies that provided jobs for environmentalists. Vigilant en- vironmentalists made sure that the laws were subsequently en- forced. Now, environmentalists use political campaigns, laws, lobbying and litigation as effec- tive tools to achieve their goals. The composition of the Leg- islature represents those who take politics seriously. Like the environmentalists in Congress in 1980, farmers today are in trouble, and their rights are in trouble. Farmers’ strengths of: optimism, thrift and indepen- dent self-reliance are being used against them by shrewd envi- ronmentalists, who take advan- tage of farmers’ corresponding reluctances to: acknowledge the impacts of environmental pro- grams, spend money on politics, and work together as a group. Yet, the $43 billion Califor- nia agriculture industry, and the $395 billion U.S. agriculture industry, are far greater than the $7.5 billion U.S. environmental industry. Farmers ought to re- alize their strength, and not sell themselves short. Farmers can use the environmentalists’ strat- egy for themselves, and can be just as successful. Farmers and other water users following this strategy would spend money on political campaigns to elect legislators who would create laws to repre- sent water users’ interests. Then federal judges would be tasked with upholding laws favorable to water users and to people in general. The money being spent on Guest comment Bruce Colbert appeasing environmentalists could go a long way politically. The average winner in a U.S. Senate race spent $10.2 million in 2012O the average winner in a U.S. House race spent $1.5 mil- lion. If the $240 million spent on the Bay Delta Conservation Plan had been spent political- ly, water restrictions may have been eased. Environmental extremists are anti-human and anti-civili- zation. “The world has cancer and the cancer is man,” cites the Club of Rome. The federal Endangered Species Act is en- forced “whatever the cost,” fa- voring fish over people, in order to eliminate the water needed for growth, causing human suf- fering. The environment is now using 48 percent of California’s dedicated water supply. Reser- voirs are being drained for fish. Farmers must act before their wells are pumping dust. Farmers, ranchers, home- builders and other industries must move beyond cronyism, or seeing one another as competi- torsO we must unite to defend civilization itself. When farm- ers apply the environmentalists’ strategy, then farmers will de- velop clout in Sacramento and Washington, D.C., and water policies will change. A highly effective means to join together and pool financial resources politically is a Super PAC — a type of 527 group. Super PACs, officially known as “independent expenditure-only committees,” may raise unlimit- ed sums of money from corpo- rations, unions, associations and individuals, and may engage in unlimited political spending. As Ronald Reagan said, “It all comes down to this basic premise: If you lose your eco- nomic freedom, you lose your political freedom and, in fact, all freedom. Freedom is some- thing that cannot be passed on genetically. It is never more than one generation away from ex- tinction. Every generation has to learn how to protect and defend it.” Bruce Colbert, AICP, is executive director of the Property Owners Association of Riverside County, Calif. The association is a nonprofit, public policy research, lobbying and educational organization, formed in 1983, to protect the interests and private property rights of landowners in the formation and implementation of public policies. Letters policy Write to us: Capital Press welcomes letters to the editor on issues of interest to farmers, ranchers and the agribusiness community. Letters policy: Please limit letters to 300 words and include your home address and a daytime telephone number with your submis- sion. Longer pieces, 500-750 words, may be considered as guest commentary pieces for use on the opinion pages. Guest commen- tary submissions should also include a photograph of the author. Send letters via email to opinions@capitalpress.com. E-mailed letters are preferred and require less time to process, which could result in quicker publication. Letters may also be sent to P.O. Box 2048, Salem, OR 97308; or by fax to 503-370-4383.