6
CapitalPress.com
August 28, 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
Incremental attacks on agriculture continue
A
look at the predicament
faced by some Yakima
Valley, Wash., dairies should
give pause to dairy operators across
the nation.
More importantly, all farmers
and ranchers would do well to
closely monitor the emerging
picture of how environmental
special interests use the legal system
to attack agriculture.
Last week, we commented
on how the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency shrugged
off transgressions in which it
participates. The 3 million gallons
of mine waste that EPA contractors
dumped into rivers in Colorado,
New Mexico and Utah was met with
the comment that it’s really not that
big a deal and that it’ll clear itself up.
Contrast that with the Yakima
Valley, where five dairies have
followed state-approved nutrient
management plans only to be
dragged into court by EPA-allied
environmental groups to test a new
legal theory. Under this theory,
manure from cattle is industrial
waste and, as such, it falls under
the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act.
These groups got a judge to fall
for that argument — the first time
since Congress passed the law
nearly 40 years ago.
Should his ruling stand, all
forms of havoc could be aimed at
agriculture. If manure is industrial
waste, it might follow under this
warped interpretation that all sorts
of byproducts could be similarly
identified.
This is another example of
incremental environmentalism, in
which activists will never, ever say
that enough is enough. They will
always want more. This cycle will
continue until the targeted business
finds it impossible to continue.
This tactic was explained to us
many years ago, and ever since we
have seen it used against businesses,
farmers, ranchers, developers,
miners, the timber industry — any
group unfortunate enough to find
itself in the environmentalists’ cross
hairs.
They also specialize in suing
federal agencies such as the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest
Service and the Bureau of Land
Management, which seem to
spend as much time and money
on defending themselves against
lawsuits as they do managing
federal lands and taking care of
other important jobs, including
fighting wildfires.
Armed with poorly written laws
such as the Endangered Species
Act and the RCRA, environmental
groups march into court seeking
more and more and more.
If they lose, they appeal, hoping
to eventually find a judge who will
go along with them. If they win,
they pop open the champagne,
collect a check from the government
— if a federal agency was sued —
and send out pleas for more money
to help them continue their fight to
“save” the environment.
They will never give up.
That’s why agriculture — and
all businesses — need to watch
closely whenever someone who is
following the law is dragged into
court.
As long as there’s money
in attacking farms, ranches,
businesses and anyone involved
in natural resource development,
environmental groups, aided and
abetted by their fellow travelers in
the EPA, will continue.
The drumbeat is growing, the
game plan is well-known and the
goal is clear. They will not stop until
they have completely hamstrung the
U.S. economy with their demands.
Lost jobs? They don’t care. More
expensive food? They don’t care.
Rural towns teetering on financial
ruin? They don’t care.
Those dairies in Yakima are to be
applauded for their efforts to defend
themselves. In a very real sense,
they are defending all of us.
Unless and until Congress gets
serious about rewriting the poorly
written laws that are used as a
blunt instrument against farmers,
ranchers and other businesses, we
will all remain at risk.
Why initiatives
should remain
a powerful tool
By GREG WASSON
For the Capital Press
T
Rik Dalvit/For the Capital Press
O ur V iew
Forest management, firefighter funding needed
ildfires have burned more
than 1.2 million acres across
the West, and ranchers and
timbermen are raising questions about
the federal government’s culpability in
fostering conditions that have made the
fires worse.
In an Aug. 17 letter, National
Cattlemen’s Beef Association and Public
Lands Council officials urged President
Barack Obama to “streamline regulations
that will allow for active management”
of federal lands and stop closed-door
settlements with environmental groups
that seek to block such efforts.
Further, NCBA president Philip Ellis
and PLC president Brenda Richards
voiced support for legislation that would
require the U.S. Forest Service to treat
at least 2 million acres a year through
mechanical thinning or prescribed burns.
The NCBA and PLC are promoting
the Resilient Federal Forests Act by
Rep. Bruce Westerman, R-Ark., which
passed the House of Representatives
W
by a 262-167 vote in July. A similar bill
by U.S. Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo.,
had a hearing last month in the upper
chamber’s Energy and Natural Resources
Committee.
They have a legitimate point.
Reductions in logging in federal forests
have allowed fuel loads to grow. We
believe environmental groups that sue
over any attempts to extract timber from
the forest — cutting or thinning — share
much of the blame.
The Obama administration and the
Forest Service are backing different
legislation. The Wildfire Disaster Funding
Act, proposed by Rep. Mike Simpson,
R-Idaho, would treat catastrophic
wildfires the same as other disasters when
it comes to funding and end the practice
of “fire borrowing,” in which the Forest
Service has to raid its management coffers
when it exceeds its budget for firefighting.
Supporters say this would allow
the Forest Service to spend more of
its budget on forest conservation and
restoration efforts.
There’s no reason to put these
measures in opposition.
Paying for firefighting is a separate
issue from proper management of the
resource. It shouldn’t be an either-or
situation, and partisans on either side of
the issue are short-sighted to frame the
argument in that way.
Even if the Resilient Federal
Forests Act were to pass tomorrow
and environmentalists dropped their
opposition to active management, it
would be years before fuel loads were
reduced to the point where it would make
a difference. Bankrupting the Forest
Service in the meantime wouldn’t further
the interests of cattlemen, let alone the
residents of forest communities.
And just giving the Forest Service
more money to fight fires won’t reduce
the danger. Posing this option as a
singular solution is irresponsible and puts
the forest, not to mention the lives of the
firefighers, at risk.
Readers’ views
Spotted, barred
owls really
one species
In “Our View” you indi-
cated that know-it-alls were
trying to take over science.
You failed to mention con-
gressmen.
Science has always, and
still, defines a species as
a group of closely related
organisms that are similar
to each other and are capa-
ble of interbreeding freely
in nature to produce fertile
offspring.
The barred owl and
spotted owl you referred to
were viewed differently by
science in 1962 when I was
studying for my master’s
degree. Dr. Findley, of the
University of New Mexico,
in an ornithology class on
speciation, cited these owls
as possibly having been a
single species, separated
by glaciers during the last
ice age and having evolved
into their present form and
place.
He mentioned the barred
owls were moving west-
ward and we should follow
this movement to see what
would happen if they were
to occupy the territory of
the spotted owl. If they were
to breed freely and produce
viable offspring they would
be of the same species. It
came to pass that they did
meet and they produced via-
ble offspring called sparred
owls and these in turn bred
with barred owls, spotted
owls and other sparred owls.
Because these birds met
the definition of a scientif-
ic species they should have
been considered as such and
allowed for nature to take
its course.
But Congress in 1973 had
passed the Endangered Spe-
cies Act which had defined
a species to include subspe-
cies or distinct segments of
any species and these must
be protected from extinction.
Because the barred owls were
more aggressive, the spotted
owls were losing out. If we
are not going to allow nature
to take its course, then we
are going to have to kill the
barred owls and keep the log-
gers out of the woods.
After watching the forests
burn because we have kept
the loggers out of the woods,
I am inclined to give these
birds a single species name,
which they deserve, and be-
gin to manage our forests for
their health and not the pres-
ervation of some subspecies.
To continue as we have in
this case is a losing battle.
Carlisle Harrison
Hermiston, Ore.
he Oregon Secretary
of State has refused to
certify a proposed ini-
tiative that sought to prohib-
it state pre-emption of local
laws.
Among other things, the
rejected constitutional amend-
ment would have allowed lo-
cal bans on genetically modi-
fied crops — GMOs — as well
as local control of pesticides,
fracking and oil exports.
“The West’s Ag Website”
— www.capitalpress.com —
is beside itself with joy at the
news, and, hopes that “this
puts an end to this (local con-
trol) nonsense.”
Newspapers across the
state reprinted the Capi-
tal Press’ editorial “happy
dance,” silently agreeing that
this level of local control
would “set up a patchwork of
regulation that would make
everyone’s business difficult,
if not impossible.”
The demerits of the “local
control” initiative aside, the
better response would have
been outrage at the poor ex-
cuse for “due process” afford-
ed the would-be petitioners.
Simply put, this total
lack of constitutional re-
spect is a direct attack on
direct democracy.
One government official
— the attorney general —
advised another government
official — the secretary of
state — that the proposed
constitutional
amend-
ment — co-sponsored by
over 1,700 registered vot-
ers — would be invalid if
approved, and, therefore
should be rejected.
“Poof.” That’s the law.
No judge ever consid-
ered the issue, and the ini-
tiative’s sponsors never got
to make an argument to any
neutral third party.
Moreover, the govern-
ment’s position ignores the
fact that the first initiative
adopted in Oregon was le-
gally meaningless, and,
therefore, technically inval-
id. Still, it is probably the
most important initiative
ever adopted.
In “America the Origi-
nal,” the various state leg-
islatures — not the people
— decided who would sit in
the federal Senate.
In the later half of the
1800s — as more and more
money gathered in fewer
and fewer pockets — brib-
ery became an accept-
ed political practice and
the Free-Marketplace of
Ideas became the Conve-
nience-Store of Accumula-
tion.
Seats in the federal Sen-
Guest
comment
Greg Wasson
ate formed the pinnacle
of this parliamentary ex-
change.
Since the federal Consti-
tution, the ultimate Amer-
ican law, defined how fed-
eral senators should be
selected, the only way to
change things was to amend
the federal Constitution.
The only way to do that was
to convince the U.S. Senate
to downsize its gravy train.
From 1872 to 1913, there
were 239 formal calls “for
direct election of the U.S.
Senate, including 220 state
party platforms and 19 na-
tional party platforms.” The
elected federal House ap-
proved the desired amend-
ment four times.
But, the appointed feder-
al Senate never concurred,
and, Gov. T.T. Geer warned
the 1901 Oregon Legisla-
ture, “probably never will.”
In 1902, Oregon bor-
rowed the initiative from
Switzerland, and, in 1904
the precursor of the People’s
Power League initiated an
imaginative — and largely
symbolic — end-run on the
federal Constitution that al-
lowed Oregon to “elect” its
federal senators in 1907.
With one state choosing
its senators by ballot, the
old appointment system
crumbled. The 17th Amend-
ment formalized direct elec-
tion, and spread it sea-to-
shining-sea in 1913.
So, essentially a bunch of
well-educated Joes from Or-
egon City used non-binding
initiatives to secure direct
election in Oregon and facil-
itate the amendment of the
federal Constitution.
If the state government
could have stopped the 1904
initiative before it ever hit
the streets, is there any doubt
that it would have? And, can
there be any doubt what the
government would do if the
situation ever arose again?
Word on the street is that
the local control advocates
are preparing to go to cir-
cuit court to fight for their
local control amendment
— Proposed Petition No. 30
(2016).
If the initiative power is
to continue to mean very
much, we have to hope they
succeed.
Greg Wasson is a Salem
initiative activist and exec-
utive secretary of the Com-
mittee for Petition Rights
SCPR). He can be reached
at PetitionCPR@aol.com.