6
CapitalPress.com
April 8, 2016
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
APHIS should hold off on deregulating GMO bentgrass
A
lthough we generally
support the development
and use of genetically
modified crops, we think
USDA’s Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service should rethink
its plan to deregulate glyphosate-
resistant creeping bentgrass.
Scotts Miracle-Gro, in
conjunction with Monsanto,
developed the GMO variety for
use on golf courses. It has been
in the deregulation process since
2003.
Last year, USDA reached an
agreement with Scotts Miracle-
Gro, which developed the
glyphosate-resistant biotech
creeping bentgrass, to lift federal
regulations on the crop as long as
it’s not commercialized.
The problem is that in 2010
the biotech bentgrass was found
growing in several miles of
irrigation canals in Oregon’s
Malheur County.
Oregon State University
experts speculated the plants
originated from seed that spread
from a seed field planted to the
grass in 2005 near Parma, Idaho,
just across the river from Malheur
County.
It seems also that the company
had other seed escape from field
trials in Jefferson County in
Central Oregon.
It’s causing quite a problem for
farmers and irrigation districts.
Once in the ditches and canals,
the seed spreads easily and is
difficult to kill.
There are limited chemical
methods for treating the
bentgrass. Not only is it
resistant to glyphosate, but
other herbicides often can’t be
used in irrigation canals without
potentially harming crops.
Those herbicides that can
be used have to be applied in
the spring before the canals are
filled with water. But in spring
bentgrass is most difficult to
identify.
Part of Scotts’ deal with
APHIS includes the company
conducting a 10-year
management plan to control the
grass. But farmers in areas where
the bentgrass is found are afraid
they’ll eventually be left holding
the bag.
The Oregon Department of
Agriculture has asked APHIS to
hold off on deregulating the crop.
The ODA claims the biotech
bentgrass doesn’t meet the federal
requirements for deregulation
because it “clearly falls into
the category of a plant pest and
noxious weed,” according to a
letter sent to APHIS.
“It is invading irrigation canals
and displacing native species
in riparian areas in the affected
O ur V iew
It’s time to clean up the EPA
ake more than a half a
million dollars in taxpayer
money, add a copious
amount of misinformation and
mix it together with a bungling
bureaucracy, and you have the
Environmental Protection Agency’s
latest misadventure.
This one involves funding a
handful of environmental groups
and a Native American tribe to
attack farmers in Washington
state under the pseudonym What’s
Upstream.
At first, the public relations
outfit they hired took a survey, only
to find that Washingtonians don’t
see a problem with the way farms
are run.
Not to be deterred, they changed
tactics in an attempt to stir up the
public by using misleading and
inaccurate billboards, social media
and advertising in an effort to force
massive buffer zones on farmers.
The ads and website show cattle
standing in a stream — without
saying when or where it allegedly
occurred — and a salmon that had
spawned, with the implication that
farmers were somehow to blame for
its demise.
Only after Senate Agriculture
T
Committee Chairman Pat Roberts
pointed out the folly of their ways
did EPA bigwigs reverse course and
acknowledge Whats Upstream was a
boondoggle.
“The EPA has much to answer
for in maligning those that grow the
food and fiber to feed the world,”
Roberts said in a written statement.
“How and why the EPA has allowed
taxpayer dollars to be used to attack
any industry, including our vital
agricultural producers, demands
answers.”
The answer lies in the EPA itself.
If farmers — or anyone else —
aren’t following the law, the EPA
should enforce it, not waste public
money on billboards, which didn’t
even say the EPA provided the
money. That was in violation of
the EPA grant, but no one at EPA
even checked until a Capital Press
Oregon counties,” the ODA letter
said, noting that the crop should
remain regulated until “a means
to eradicate this pest becomes
available.”
We agree on this one. After all,
the GMO bentgrass first escaped
while under regulated field trials.
It seems that danger only will
increase when the regulators
aren’t watching.
Scotts says it won’t leave
Oregon farmers and irrigation
districts to their own devices, and
we’ll take them at their word. But
deregulating now and finding a
management solution later seems
like putting the cart before the
horse.
Congressional, state
approval should be
required for monuments
By MIKE CRAPO
For the Capital Press
A
Rik Dalvit/For the Capital Press
reporter asked about it.
We’ve about had it with the EPA,
which consistently embarrasses
itself by wasting public money
or by its bizarre behavior. Some
examples:
• Years ago an EPA bigwig
skipped out of work for more than
2 1/2 years total while collecting
$100,000 a year. When his boss
finally got around to asking about it,
the employee said he was a spy.
• EPA bigwigs were found to
have secret email accounts used
to communicate with their friends
in the environmental community,
allowing them to avoid public
records laws.
• An Idaho couple was forced
to go to court to stop the EPA
from fining them $37,500 a day
while they challenged a wetlands
determination on a building lot. The
EPA took the case all the way to the
U.S. Supreme Court — and lost.
• An EPA regional bigwig in
Texas made insulting comments
about “crucifying” members of the
public that get in the agency’s way.
• The EPA held a series of
closed-door meetings to discuss
proposed regulations on dust.
They even kicked a Capital Press
reporter out of a meeting. The
reason: Because they felt people
would be afraid to speak in public.
About dust. Really.
• An Oregon farmer is being
hassled by the EPA for preventing
dirt from eroding into a river.
• An EPA contractor dumped a
million gallons of mine waste into
a river in Colorado but kept the
water data secret.
• And don’t forget the Waters
of the U.S. rules, which were
supposed to clear up federal
regulations that had landed the EPA
in court. Now the new version is in
court, too.
When taken together, the
EPA’s actions embarrass its
good employees and make it
the bureaucratic equivalent of a
Superfund site.
The EPA needs to be cleaned
up, and the sooner the better. The
American public deserves a clean
environment, and they deserve
a clean federal environmental
agency that can do the job without
alienating the public, wasting
money or embarrassing itself.
Apparently, the current
administration has no interest in
cleaning up the EPA.
But there is hope.
Maybe the next administration
— whoever the president is — will
do it.
s active participants
in the decisions made
in Congress, Idahoans
contact me with valuable in-
put about the issues our coun-
try faces. Realizing that many
may not have the chance to
contact me, I post the top five
issues of concern from Idaho-
ans and my responses on my
website. Idahoans have con-
tacted me regarding potential
monument designations and
land acquisitions in Western
states. The following is my
response:
The Antiquities Act of
1906 authorizes U.S. presi-
dents to unilaterally designate
national monuments in the in-
terest of preserving lands con-
taining historic landmarks,
buildings and structures, as
well as other objects of histor-
ic or scientific interest.
However, this authority
remains controversial, as the
president is allowed to sin-
gle-handedly make restrictive
land-use decisions without the
input of affected communities
or other local stakeholders.
To that end, on Jan. 21,
2015, I introduced S. 228,
the National Monument Des-
ignation Transparency and
Accountability Act. S. 228
would limit the president’s
authority by amending the
Antiquities Act to require
congressional and state ap-
proval of proposed national
monuments on federal lands
and certify completion of
provisions included in the
National Environmental Pol-
icy Act of 1969 prior to mak-
ing any presidential procla-
mations.
Additionally, this legisla-
tion would prohibit the secre-
tary of the Interior from plac-
ing any restrictions regarding
public use of a national mon-
ument without congressional
approval and appropriate
review and public comment
periods. S. 228 has been re-
ferred to the Senate Ener-
gy and Natural Resources
Committee for further con-
sideration. Rep. Don Young,
R-Alaska, has introduced re-
Guest
comment
Mike Crapo
lated legislation in the House
of Representatives.
One-size-fits-all
ap-
proaches to public lands
management, mainly by di-
rectives from Washington,
D.C., take us in the wrong
direction. The designation of
national monuments has been
contentious for many years
in the West. In fact, concerns
over national monument des-
ignations and similar sweep-
ing executive actions have,
in part, motivated coalitions
of stakeholders to undertake
collaborative efforts to solve
these difficult issues.
Collaborative efforts have
organized across our state
and throughout the West, and
they are being utilized to ad-
dress everything from public
lands conflicts to resource
protection and species re-
covery. Collaboratives seek
to bring to the table interests
that have a stake in the issue
at hand, namely resource us-
ers, conservationists, local
people and governments, ad-
vocacy organizations, federal
and state governments and
more.
Collaboratives are very
difficult to do and do not al-
ways work out. Yet, they are
the single best process avail-
able for resolving conflicts
and setting a path forward
that has public support and
will be implemented by pub-
lic land management agen-
cies. Several collaborative
efforts are currently hard at
work in Idaho.
Americans deserve to en-
joy a variety of benefits from
our nation’s abundant public
land, including both recre-
ational and commercial use.
I will continue to advocate
for community-based collab-
orative efforts to manage our
public lands, and support leg-
islative efforts that meet that
end.
Mike Crapo is a Republi-
can U.S. senator from Idaho.
How to get our message across when we talk to the media
By WILL RODGER
For the Capital Press
F
or as long as many farm-
ers could remember,
the story was the same:
Don’t talk to the newspapers,
TV or radio. The message was
clear: You have nothing to gain.
It’s hard to think of any attitude
more outdated today.
The sad truth is there’s an
army of ill-informed activists
who want to do away with
what they call “factory farm-
ing.” These anti-farmer voic-
es are loud and ignorant, but
also well-placed. Farmers and
ranchers have to counter them.
Here’s how.
Open your doors: The me-
dia seldom get a look at real
Guest
comment
Will Rogers
farmers. Meeting reporters on
your own farm helps them un-
derstand what really goes on in-
stead of being duped by the lat-
est food or environmental fad.
Some farms even have 24-hour
webcams so the public can see
what really goes on. Whether
or not you want to go that far,
the public needs to see farmers
more. You can help.
Have an agenda: Have three
or maybe four main points you
want to make. You should be
able to state the basics on each
in two or three sentences as
well as in a longer format.
Anecdotes are good; reli-
able data is much better: The
best reporters aspire to know as
much as the people they cov-
er. In some cases they actually
get there. I recently met with
a Washington Post Reporter
who thought most of America’s
farmland was owned by major
corporations which, in turn,
produced most of our food. My
telling her otherwise was point-
less, but she was convinced
when I produced a basic fact
book from USDA. Having the
right facts at your fingertips can
be everything.
Play to the outlet’s interests
and biases: Ag media is seldom
hostile, but mainstream report-
ers are, at best, a mixed bag. As
before, you need to know the
facts, but couching things in the
right terms can mean the differ-
ence between good coverage
and bad coverage, or nothing
at all. Ask yourself what about
your story will appeal to the
reporter you are speaking with.
Many journalists sympathize
with government regulators, but
very, very few will take the side
of arbitrary and abusive treat-
ment at their hands. Use what
you know about the outlet to
your advantage.
Explain, then explain again:
Very few non-farmers know
much about what farmers do,
so avoid words you don’t read
in the mainstream media. Re-
member issues such as erosion,
runoff and the need for proper
drainage are completely foreign
to most reporters. Even basics
like weed and insect control
are poorly understood, if at all.
If you have something to say,
restate it, repeat the obvious,
then ask the reporter in a friend-
ly way why he thinks it matters
to you. You’ll be surprised how
many questions and answers it
often takes to get the story right.
Practice, practice, practice:
Unless you spend most of your
day talking about policy, you
will need to practice what you’re
going to say with someone you
trust. Family and friends at your
county Farm Bureau can be
good sounding boards. Friends
who don’t know farming can be
better still, since they will hear
what you are saying as the aver-
age person would.
Develop that relationship:
We don’t all have a chance to
talk to reporters on a regular
basis, but it’s not inconceiv-
able you could become that
resident expert a reporter re-
lies on in the future. So stay
friendly, be open, make time
to talk to reporters who want
to talk to you. They won’t al-
ways get everything right, but
the better they get to know
you, the more likely they will.
The world badly needs people
who can explain how farming
and ranching really work.
Will Rodger is director
of policy communications at
the American Farm Bureau
Federation.