6
CapitalPress.com
November 13, 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
Immigration reform snared in D.C. politics
A
nyone who still has
illusions that a legislative
solution to immigration
— both legal and illegal — is
possible before the next election
wasn’t paying attention last
week.
Paul Ryan, the newly installed
speaker of the House, ruled out
any comprehensive reform of the
immigration system as long as
President Obama is in office.
“I don’t think we can trust
the president on this issue,”
Ryan said on NBC’s “Meet the
Press” and other programs. “I do
not believe we should advance
comprehensive immigration
legislation with a president who
has proven himself untrustworthy
on this issue.”
Ryan was referring to Obama’s
attempt to give temporary
legal status and work permits
to as many as 5 million illegal
immigrants by executive action,
bypassing Congress.
We concede that the
president’s action, creative as he
found it, was an egregious over
reach of executive authority.
And the courts agree. A
three-judge panel of the 5th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals last
summer upheld a lower court’s
order blocking implementation of
the order. The appeals court said
the action goes beyond reasonable
prosecutorial discretion allowed
the executive branch by taking
the affirmative action of
conferring “lawful presence.”
The president does not have
the authority to grant work
permits and temporary legal
status to illegal immigrants. The
Constitution (Article 1, Section
8) gives Congress sole power
to “establish a uniform rule of
naturalization.” Only Congress
can change the law.
That it has consistently refused
to take action does not change
the Constitution and allow the
president to do so by fiat.
Still, the law needs to be
changed and the fate of 12
million illegal immigrants — and
the industries that depend upon
their labor — must be decided.
Republican leaders must rise
above their pique and either in
small bites or comprehensive
fashion begin to address the issue.
We’ve often touted our plan.
Congress should offer illegal
immigrants willing to register
temporary legal status and a
path to permanent residency
after 10 years if they meet strict
requirements — no prior felony
convictions, no violations while
awaiting residency, learning to
speak English and pay a fine and
back taxes. Those not meeting the
requirement should be deported.
As penalty for entering
illegally, those made permanent
residents should not be eligible
for citizenship.
O ur V iew
A wilderness proposal gone wild
R
esidents of Malheur County,
Ore., are wise to be suspicious
of a plan to designate 43
percent of their county as a wilderness
area.
They should continue to resist the
proposal any way they can.
It’s a tradition among outgoing
Democratic presidents to set aside
massive swaths of the West as
wilderness areas. They do it to
curry favor with the environmental
community.
Jimmy Carter holds the record,
setting aside 27 million acres of Alaska
as wilderness during his single term as
president.
Bill Clinton set aside 9.2 million
acres of wilderness in seven national
monuments as he was heading out the
door.
Now it’s President Barack Obama’s
turn.
You’ll note that in all of the above
cases, the people who live in those
areas were steamrolled.
That’s why we’re concerned
about the Owyhee Canyonlands
Conservation Proposal, which would
designate a little more than 2 million
acres as wilderness and 50 miles of
rivers as wild and scenic rivers.
Under the Wilderness Act of 1964,
“no temporary road, no use of motor
vehicles, motorized equipment or
motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no
other form of mechanical transport and
no structure or installation” is allowed
except as a way to meet the minimum
requirements of administering the area.
Even using vehicles to take out
juniper trees, which ruin greater sage
grouse habitat, is banned. A federal
judge recently ruled that motorized
vehicles couldn’t be used to help clear
junipers from a wilderness study area
near Steens Mountain in south-central
Oregon. And note the name of the
plaintiff in the lawsuit: the Oregon
Natural Desert Association, which
is behind the wilderness plan for
For the Capital Press
T
Rik Dalvit/For the Capital Press
Malheur County.
Though proponents such as ONDA
promise that grazing allotments would
be grandfathered in, ranchers there find
little comfort in the assurance.
Bob Skinner, a rancher, reminded
the 500 people who filled the Adrian
High School gym recently that
proponents of the plan such as ONDA
are litigators.
“Once this gets to court, all bets are
off,” he told the crowd.
The irony of the meeting was provided
when Brent Fenty, executive director of
ONDA, told the crowd he wants to stop
mining and oil and gas drilling.
“We all care about the Owyhee and
want to keep it the way it is today, we
just may disagree on how we do that,”
he said.
Indeed.
The most troubling aspect of this
plan is the Obama administration is
hiding its intentions from members of
Congress. Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore.,
represents Malheur County. He says he
has asked the administration to tell the
truth about the plan, but has thus far
received no answer.
State Rep. Cliff Bentz, R-Ontario,
organized the Adrian meeting and
plans to send a video of it to the White
By STEWART TRUELSEN
N
oma, one of the world’s
best restaurants known
for its new Nordic cui-
sine, will close at the end of next
year and reopen on a different
site in Copenhagen as an urban
farm. Chef René Redzepi says
he wants to grow all the produce
on his menu. He’s nervous about
the decision, and who wouldn’t
be? Running a first-class restau-
rant is risky enough; running a
farm is even riskier.
One would think that with all
the advancements in agriculture
over the last half century surely
the risky business of farming
has become more predictable
and stable. Farming is less intu-
itive and more data-driven, but
that hasn’t eliminated the uncer-
tainty of it.
Risk is the probability of an
unwanted event occurring, and
every year farmers and ranch-
ers brace themselves for these
Farm to Family: A
resource for growers
By JACK VESSEY
House in hopes that members of the
administration will understand what’s
at stake.
We often write about the “urban-
rural divide.” This is the perfect
example of where it’s getting wider.
Proponents — nearly all from cities
— want to impose wilderness status
on rural residents. The urbanites don’t
care what the rural residents think or
that it will ultimately eviscerate the
local economy.
There is precious little in the record
to show that the Obama administration
will listen to the people of Malheur
County. The administration has a long
track record of imposing regulatory
shock and awe on rural parts of the
West. The Environmental Protection
Agency’s Waters of the United States
regulations and the Department of
Labor’s “hot goods” actions against
farmers are just two prominent
examples of how federal agencies
overstep their authority.
And consider this: There is also
nothing in the record to indicate
that proponents of designating more
wilderness in Malheur County care
even a tiny bit about the people who
live there — or anywhere else in the
rural West.
Farming among the riskiest of businesses
For the Capital Press
We think the border must be
secured. A viable guestworker
program must be established, and
employers must verify the work
status of their employees.
It seems to us both parties
are happy to use immigration
as a wedge issue for the 2016
presidential campaign. To that
end, a resolution now probably
wouldn’t serve their interests.
But this situation has dragged
on long enough and won’t be
improved with the passing of yet
another election.
We repeat ourselves in stating
that the choice is simple: Make
them go, or let them stay.
One way or the other, do it
now.
Guest
comment
Stewart Truelsen
unwanted events.
In 2015, the spring outbreak of
avian influenza and the western
drought were at top of the list.
Nationwide more than 50
million birds were lost, affecting
the production of eggs, chickens
and turkeys at a cost of over a
billion dollars. Consumers no-
ticed a price ripple at the super-
market, but hard-hit producers
may need a couple of years to
recover.
The drought will result in
losses of nearly $2 billion to
California agriculture this year
alone. Nearly a half million acres
of cropland were left fallow in
the Central Valley. Mountain
snowpack was historically low,
forcing cutbacks in irrigation.
If you think farmers who
escaped these unusually bad
events are in the clear you would
be wrong. Across agriculture,
net farm income is expected
to drop by more than a third in
2015. The final numbers won’t
be known for some time, but
it will likely be the worst drop
since 1983.
The ups and downs of farm-
ing are nothing new; they were
recorded as far back as the Bible.
Joseph perhaps was the first per-
son to practice risk management
when he interpreted Pharaoh’s
dream and told him to stock-
pile grain ahead of seven years
of famine. In biblical times, the
risks to agriculture were primar-
ily drought, pestilence and war.
Today, farmers and ranchers
are faced with a host of addi-
tional risks that can result in fi-
nancial loss. For example, there
are political risks that threaten
the renewable fuel market as
big oil companies continue to
lobby against ethanol. There are
regulatory risks as the federal
government attempts to extend
jurisdiction over just about ev-
erything a farmer can do on his
land. The global marketplace
is risky as well with American
farmers susceptible to a fall-off in
world demand, trade restrictions
and currency fluctuations.
Most producers use a combi-
nation of financial strategies and
tools to manage risk including
forward contracts, hedges, crop
yield insurance and crop revenue
insurance. Off-farm employment
by members of the household
also provides a more certain in-
come stream. Yet, nothing can
offset all the risks of operating a
farm or ranch.
As the public becomes more
knowledgeable about how their
food is grown, thanks to educa-
tors and the agriculture industry,
it is important not to leave out the
very basic fact that farming is still
a financially risky business.
Stewart Truelsen, a food and
agriculture freelance writer, is a
regular contributor to the Focus
on Agriculture series.
here are a lot of un-
knowns in farming.
Sometimes market
conditions just aren’t working in
your favor. Sometimes the cold
storage is over-packed. Some-
times we end up with a lot of
secondary product that doesn’t
meet retailer or consumer de-
mands for perfection.
But there is a solution to
some of these variables — and it
can help your business and your
community.
Farm to Family is a program
by the California Association of
Food Banks, and it provides a
reliable, timely solution to some
of the challenges faced by grow-
ers and packers — and for me,
it’s also a key part of my busi-
ness structure.
Farm to Family isn’t asking
for hand-outs — it works with
farmers and packers to ensure
harvesting costs can be recouped
whenever possible. In many cas-
es it offers reimbursements of a
few cents per pound to cover
picking and pack-out costs. The
State of California also allows
some growers to claim a 10 per-
cent state tax credit on the value
of donated fresh fruits and veg-
etables.
Just like the families, se-
niors and children who get re-
lief from food given to them by
food pantries in your commu-
nity, Farm to Family gives me
relief because I know I have a
meaningful destination for my
products that doesn’t cut into
my bottom line. It’s a program
that other farmers should sup-
port.
More than 100 growers and
packers throughout California
already participate, so I’m not
the only one who knows about
the benefits of this program.
Guest
comment
Jack Vessey
Farm to Family is on a mission
to reach new landmarks. Will
you join me in helping them
achieve 200 million pounds of
fresh, California-grown fruits,
vegetables, grains, dairy and
other farm products donated
each year?
If you have the means to
make an outright product do-
nation to Farm to Family, by all
means do it. Even if you’re not
in a position to donate outright,
give Farm to Family a call —
they may be able to work to help
you recover some harvesting
costs. Steve Linkhart heads the
Farm to Family program and can
be reached at stevelinkhart@
cafoodbanks.org. He’ll connect
you with a local representative
who will handle all logistics —
from supplying bins to send-
ing trucks and timing pick-ups
for your convenience. Farm to
Family works fast to take care of
you and your community. Every
donation is seamless.
I was raised by a father who
felt it was important to give back
to the community and to be able
to look in the mirror at the end
of the day knowing that you
did something good. Imperial
County has the highest unem-
ployment rate in the state and I
believe as a fortunate farmer, it’s
important to do as much as I can
to help. As farmers, we play an
important role in feeding people
nutritious food, and the Farm to
Family program is yet another
way to get good food on family
tables.
Jack Vessey, of Vessey and
Co., is a fourth-generation pro-
duce grower and shipper based
in Holtville, Calif.
Readers’ views
Only you, the maker of
Answer to
the milk supply, can make
your milk worth more than
low producer
what it costs to make.
pay prices
Only you can effectively
Processors and co-ops’
violation of the economic
law of supply-and-demand
cannot be effectively cured
through any government or
political action (FMMO or
mandatory check-off deduc-
tion programs), insurance
programs (Dairy Margin Pro-
tection Program-MPP), give-
away or price discount pro-
grams (CWT), or by hedging
or futures trading.
No artificial gimmick will
effectively cure a supply in
excess of profitable demand.
Balancing the supply of
milk with profitable demand
by the maker of the supply of
milk is the only effective cure
for the violation of the eco-
nomic law of supply-and-de-
mand.
Dairy farmer — do not be
tricked by the seller of snake
oil solutions to your unprof-
itability. Do not continue to
believe in and pay for inef-
fective gimmicks.
cure the on-going violation
of the economic law of sup-
ply-and-demand and create a
profitable price for milk you
make. Because dairy farm-
ers’ ability to make milk far
exceeds anyone’s ability to
create profitable demand,
milk supply discipline which
balances supply with profit-
able demand is required for
any hope of dairy farmer sus-
tainable profitability.
Dairy farmers can achieve
profitability by properly
managing themselves and
the milk they make and their
dairy farmer-owned co-ops.
Dairy farmers need to step
up and manage themselves
and their co-ops for their
own profitability rather than
let their co-op management
continue to manage them for
everyone else’s profitability.
Bob Krucker
Board Member
The National Dairy
Producers Organization
Jerome, Idaho