Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Capital press. (Salem, OR) 19??-current | View Entire Issue (Feb. 12, 2016)
6 CapitalPress.com Editorials are written by or approved by members of the Capital Press Editorial Board. February 12, 2016 All other commentary pieces are the opinions of the authors but not necessarily this newspaper. Opinion O UR V IEW W System works to help onion growers e have any number of examples where individual federal government agencies have acted with a heavy hand and have not listened to the people they seek to regulate. We have often criticized these instances in this space. So we think it also deserves mention when an agency does listen and makes common sense changes to proposed rules that make it easier for growers to comply and remain viable. The Food Safety Modernization Act was passed by Congress in 2010 with the goal of mandating best safety practices for producers and processors while making it easier for regulators to trace foodborne illnesses to their source. The task of writing and enforcing rules fell to the Food and Drug Administration, which initially proposed 1,200 pages of regulations to address food safety controls for the growing, harvesting, packing and holding of produce for human consumption. They came under immediate fi re from many farmers and industry groups that said they weren’t practical and were too costly. Onion producers in Idaho, Oregon and Washington noted that ag water provisions in the proposed rules established a standard that would have been impossible for growers who irrigate from open ditches to meet. No approved treatment method existed, nor would it be economical if it did exist. FDA’s initial proposal would have required produce growers whose irrigation water exceeded certain thresholds for bacteria to immediately stop using it. That would have made it impossible for most people in the valley to grow onions, industry leaders say. Had those provisions been adopted, the industry would have been doomed. There was an outcry, and members of Congress got involved. FDA offi cials took a fi eld trip to Eastern Oregon . The FDA relented. Rather than limiting growers to fi xing the water, the revised rules allow other mitigation options. The fi nal rule allows growers whose water exceeds the standards to comply if they can show that bacteria dies off at a certain rate in the fi eld. Oregon State University researchers found that bacteria dies off quickly on onions left in the fi eld to cure, a common practice in the region. So growers have a viable alternative. This isn’t to say that onion growers are completely satisfi ed with the rules, but they have options that didn’t exist in the original draft. And that’s because in this instance the system worked as it was meant to work — citizens with a grievance petitioned their government for redress, and their government listened and found a way to meet its goals without putting everyone out of business. We’re a bit too jaded to believe this will happen every time, but not so to hope that it will. O UR V IEW It’s best to prepare for environmental inspections T here was a time when farms were off the radar of most regulators. A dairy operator or a rancher could go for years without a visit from his friendly local, state or federal environmental offi cial. Now, however, the spotlight has turned to agriculture in general and livestock operations in particular. Not only are they on the radar, they are a focus of tough water-quality regulations. In Idaho, for example, dairies with more than 25 employees are now considered public water systems. The state Department of Environmental Quality plans to regulate the dairies with a heightened awareness of that requirement. First it must be said that the vast majority of farmers and ranchers are good operators. They follow the rules and regulations and would have no problems even if they were inspected every week. Others, however, need to follow one of two courses of action. In the fi rst, they can continue to Rik Dalvit/For the Capital Press operate the way they’ve always done it and hope for the best. If no inspectors show up, that’s all right, but they don’t know what an inspector might fi nd. They are the wishful thinkers. In the second, a farmer or rancher can follow the rules and prepare for an inspection. What questions will be asked? What will the inspector look for? They are the professionals. That second tactic makes the most sense. Even a farmer who’s doing everything right needs to know how best to respond to inspectors’ questions. In Idaho, dairy farmers are working to be ready for inspections. For example, the Idaho Dairymen’s Association invited representatives of the Environmental Protection Agency to their meeting to talk about how inspections are conducted. The insight they gained will be invaluable for those farmers and their operations. O UR V IEW A Federal government shouldn’t be shopping for more land lthough many readers disagree, we fi nd no Constitutional barriers to the federal government owning real estate in any of the 50 states, 16 territories and the District of Columbia. Whether it should own as much as it does, and whether some of that land might be more ably managed by state governments are entirely different and open questions. But because it does already own so much, and its management is in question, we aren’t convinced the federal government should be looking to add to its holdings to the tune of nearly a half a billion dollars in the current fi scal year. Huge land holdings Though the statistics are now familiar, we repeat them for context. The federal government owns 640 million acres, more or less, or about 28 percent of all land in the United States. By comparison, billionaire Ted Turner is the largest private landowner in the country, with somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 million acres — no more than a rounding error in the federal inventory. The big four agencies Four agencies hold most of the government’s land. The Bureau of Land Management has 247 million acres; the U.S. Forestry Service has 193 million acres; the Fish and Wildlife Service has 150 million acres; and the National Park Service has 84 million acres. Far from being distributed equally, much of that land is in the West and Alaska. The federal government owns 51 percent of the land in the 11 most Western states, and 69 percent of Alaska. We admit that the government holds national treasures that should be preserved, from spectacular national parks to hallowed battlefi elds. Still, does the federal government need even one more acre? What the government wants, it usually eventually gets. Local buyers are outbid, or are never given the chance. Land goes out of productive use, and off the tax rolls forever. Some good may be served, but at what cost to the local economy and community? Other budget needs As they add to their holdings, we hear from the agencies that they lack the money to fi ght fi res that endanger these treasures, or maintain the infrastructure, or carry out important conservation projects. Perhaps now is the time to say enough is enough, and put that half a billion dollars back into improving what we collectively already hold. Editorial Board Publisher Editor Managing Editor Mike O’Brien Joe Beach Carl Sampson opinions@capitalpress.com Online: www.capitalpress.com/opinion We must dispel myths surrounding protest By CLINT SIEGNER For the Capital Press O regon Gov. Kate Brown sat in her offi ce Jan. 20 and drafted a letter to the U.S. attorney general and the FBI director. She wrote that ne- gotiations with “radicals” occu- pying the Malheur Wildlife Ref- uge had failed and insisted on a “swift resolution to this matter.” Local offi cials, including Harney County Judge Steve Grasty, made similar demands. On Jan. 26, they got what they asked for. Authorities, including the FBI, ambushed and arrested Ammon Bundy and others on their way to a meeting in neigh- boring Grant County. They shot LaVoy Finicum dead. He was not holding a weapon. Awful. Grasty and Brown knew what might happen should the FBI decide negotiations had failed. Few have forgotten the stand offs at Waco and Ruby Ridge and that “swift” action often means people die — in many cases, indiscriminately. It’s ironic, but the behavior of the judge and the governor goes a long way to make protesters’ case for them. Blind devotion to federal authority is terribly dan- gerous to lives and to liberty. The protest in Harney Coun- ty will certainly not be the last over federal overreach. Here is hoping people fi nd reason next time, before demanding danger- ous federal intervention. To that end, it is time to dis- pel a few myths about what is going on. Myth 1: The armed people at the refuge were threaten- ing violence. You wouldn’t know it by watching TV news, or read- ing Brown’s hysteric letter, but the refuge wasn’t an armed compound full of violent people. To fi nd that, you needed to drive by the air- port in Burns, Ore., where fed- eral agents staged behind fences with military vehicles, equip- ment and weapons. Yes, the occupants at the ref- uge were armed and reserved the right to defend themselves. The difference between them and any other citizen claiming their Second Amendment right is they did so from inside public, and previously unoccupied, fed- eral buildings. They got little credit for do- ing virtually everything possible to minimize threats and inter- ruptions to the community. They could scarcely have chosen a more remote location. It was more like an open house than a compound. Locals could visit to see what the stand- off was about. The protesters invited anyone who wanted to have an honest conversation. For Oregonians, the much larger threat is their high offi - cials writing letters and urging the feds to “swift” action. Myth 2: Only nutty, right- wing militias from outside would stoop to such tactics. Brown and Grasty must know the protest included state and local residents. Plenty of com- munity people were sympa- thetic enough to bring food and supplies. If they had visited, they would have found people there ready to talk calmly, rationally and intelligently about the is- sues. Tragically they felt there had been too much talking al- ready. Now one of the most calm and rational leaders in the group is dead. Federal supremacists like to marginalize anyone advocating local control as radical and dan- gerous. They want you to be- lieve these people are motivated by crazy ideology. They don’t talk much about history. These issues have been simmering for decades. The Sagebrush Rebellion made headlines in the 1970s and ’80s. There are smart folks stretching back to the nation’s founding who question the legitimacy of federal control over public land. Given how economically devastating the Bureau of Land Guest comment Clint Siegner Management and Forest Service management has been for rural communities around Oregon, Brown and Grasty should be asking questions, too. Myth 3: Anyone opposed to federal control of lands hates conservation. The philosophy of the national conservation groups is irrational. They insist the best way to protect public lands is to put unelected bureaucrats head- quartered thousands of miles away in charge. That position is hard to fathom. Many conservationists see the value in “buying local” when it comes to food and ser- vices. Local is great, except when it comes to government? It is a bit reminiscent of war. The propaganda department de- humanizes the enemy, branding ranchers and loggers as foolish and blinded by greed and local citizens as if they are too inept to stand up to them. The truth is, there are wise people who care for the environ- ment living in Harney County. Included among them are cattle ranchers and forestry profes- sionals. Many simply believe management decision-making would be better if it was done much closer to home. Myth 4: Ranchers just want a free ride . It would be far more accurate to say ranch- ers want fair, not free. Many Western ranches have a federal grazing allot- ment attached. Most of the time ranchers ac- quire the permit when they buy a ranch, though they can buy and sell them in- dependently. The point is, cattle- men pay big money upfront for a right to the grass. On top of that, they pay graz- ing fees annually. Some argue the fees are set way below the market rate to rent private pas- ture. But they don’t account for ranchers maintaining fences and water systems. These are key differences versus renting pri- vate pasture. In any event, practically no rancher is complaining about the dollars involved. They ob- ject to paying federal agencies who have a long history of treat- ing them like tenant farmers and disrespecting legitimate prop- erty rights. Most support the idea of paying fees locally, and getting more accountable range management in return. Myth 5: The federal govern- ment’s prerogative to own and manage the majority of lands in Oregon is beyond question. Now we get to the crux of the matter. Everyone raised in the U.S. is taught federal laws are supreme. What’s more, we learn the U.S. Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter on whether a law is constitutional. Those ar- guing for state and local control of lands had their day in court. They lost. Case closed. Not so fast. What we were all taught is nonsense. In fact, the States are sovereign and su- preme. They have the power — make that sacred duty — to nul- lify unconstitutional laws and defend the liberty of citizens. The kicker is Brown already acknowledged this truth in an- other context. She signed a bill legalizing recreational mari- juana last year, in disregard of federal law. She didn’t send a letter to D.C. begging for fed- eral storm troopers to batter the doors in at pot dispensaries. On the contrary, she determined Oregon’s authority trumps fed- eral dictates and acted accord- ingly. What a “radical.” May she and Grasty fi nd that spirit of independence before calling on the FBI to crush the next protest. Clint Siegner is a director at Money Metals Exchange, a precious metals dealer in Eagle, Idaho. He grew up in a cattle ranching family in Fields, Ore. Blind devotion to federal authority is terribly dangerous to lives and to liberty
