6
CapitalPress.com
Editorials are written by or
approved by members of the
Capital Press Editorial Board.
June 17, 2016
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
Stock dog killers deserve punishment
T
he Humane Society of
the United States has
put up a $5,000 reward
for information that leads to
the conviction of the person
responsible for poisoning 14
stock dogs near Parma, Idaho.
We hope the reward will
produce quick results and the
perpetrators of these heinous
crimes can be brought to the
justice they deserve.
Since April, 14 stock dogs
used by a Canyon County farmer
to guard and shepherd sheep and
goats have been poisoned. Twelve
have died.
The dogs were intentionally
poisoned with strychnine, said
Dr. Brent Varriale, a Fruitland
veterinarian who examined
three of them. He said they had
large amounts of green dyed
grain in their stomachs, which is
consistent with gopher bait that
contains strychnine.
The gopher bait was mixed
with a signiicant amount of raw
ground meat and the amount of
bait found in each dog would
have required mixing it with food
to encourage the dogs to eat as
much of it as they did, he said.
We can’t understand how
anyone could intentionally poison
a working dog. It makes no
sense. Safe to say that the crimes
have enraged the good people of
Canyon County, and beyond.
Because the dogs cost between
$1,500 and $2,500 each, it may
be possible to charge a suspect
with felonies.
Given the dogs died a
particularly gruesome death,
we’re not sure those legal
penalties will come close to
providing justice. But since Idaho
law no longer provides for public
hangings, they will have to do.
O ur V iew
O ur V iew
Wolf regulations get reality check
Diversity helps protect
Western farmers
T
he saga of reintroducing wolves
into the Paciic Northwest
appears to have entered a new
chapter, as managers in Washington
announced their revised guidelines for
managing the predators.
Formulated by the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife’s
Wolf Advisory Group, the guidelines
appear to be realistic and much more
workable than the department’s irst
rules, which were neither.
The advisory group played a key
role in developing the new regulations,
and the participation of ranchers,
conservationists and others shows
in its work product. We have to
acknowledge that the outcome appears
to be better than we anticipated.
Although the initial proclivity for
secrecy and the steep pricetag of
$800,000 caught our attention, it’s
good to see better rules emerge.
Wolves are back in the Northwest.
In Idaho, where the irst Canadian
immigrants were dropped off in
the mid-1990s, the wolves have
long been past the point of needing
protection.
In Oregon and Washington, where
the wolves appeared within the
past decade, the recent population
growth curve has been steep, about
36 percent a year. At that rate, the
population will nearly double every
two years for the foreseeable future.
That growth means managers can
switch gears from protecting wolves
to managing them. Washington’s
new rules are similar to Oregon’s
rules, allowing for a set number of
depredations before removing the
A
Rik Dalvit/For the Capital Press
responsible wolves.
There are so many wolves that in
some areas that a “wolf jam” appears
to have developed. In northeastern
Washington, for example, managers
are having dificulty determining
which wolves — or packs of
wolves — are responsible for killing
livestock. Two wolf packs overlap in
the area of the attacks.
Washington’s rules also call for
state Fish and Wildlife Department
people on the ground to work with
ranchers to assess damage and
determine what happened and how
to avoid it from happening again.
They have the ability to help ranchers
igure out ways to keep hungry
wolves at bay, which is the true value
of having state managers anyway.
One quirk in Oregon’s rules for
managing wolves is the tendency
for managers to say a dead lamb or
cow is a “probable” wolf kill even
though evidence points to wolves.
For example, near Mud Creek in
northeastern Oregon, a 150-pound
calf was killed and partially eaten by
a predator with large teeth, according
to the state Department of Fish and
Wildlife. The calf was consumed
in one night, another indication
that it was killed by a wolf, yet the
department called it a “probable”
wolf kill.
When police investigate a murder
scene, they try to put all of the
evidence together and make some sort
of conclusion about what happened.
Not so with Oregon wildlife
managers. They seem eager to just
shrug their shoulders and say a wolf
kill was “probable” unless the wolf is
caught in the act.
As the wolf management rules
become more realistic with the
burgeoning wolf populations, we also
hope investigations become more
conclusive so problem wolves can be
identiied and addressed.
report by
Oregon’s Office
of Economic
Analysis has encouraging
words for Oregon’s farm
and food industries.
The quarterly
economic and
revenue forecast by
Senior Economist
Josh Lehner predicts
strong performance by
Oregon’s agricultural
segments and associated
industries. Oregon’s food
processing and beverage
manufacturing industries
are expected to perform
well over the next decade,
and the state’s crop
production and nurseries
will gain as well.
There’s no question
that some sectors of
the state’s diverse ag
and food processing
economies are booming.
Craft beer, wine and now
cider continue to gain
popularity. After taking
a drubbing during the
recession, nurseries are
seeing increased sales
as the housing sector
has improved. Fields in
the Willamette Valley
previously planted in
wheat have been returned
to grass seed.
All good news.
But at nearly the
same time Lehner was
presenting his report,
the USDA’s Farm
Service Agency was
reminding us that success
in various segments
in the ag economy is
countercyclical — when
some things are up, other
things are down.
The agency says
demand for its operating
loans is outpacing
available funds, partly
due to lower farm
incomes.
Funds for the agency’s
direct operating loans
and guaranteed operating
loans are likely to run out
in this month, well ahead
of the beginning of the
next federal fiscal year
in October when the loan
fund will be replenished.
Dairy prices are below
the cost of production.
Wheat prices have
been described as
“uninspiring.” Potato
prices are sluggish, hay is
lackluster.
But unlike the
Midwest, where most
every major commodity is
in the dumper, the strength
of agriculture in the
Pacific Northwest is its
diversity. All is not lost.
Opposing TPP: The half-truth and nothing else
By KEVIN KESTER
For the Capital Press
L
ast month 225 agricul-
tural associations and
companies sent a strong
letter of support to congressio-
nal leaders calling for a vote in
favor of the Trans-Paciic Part-
nership during 2016.
In the wake of this display of
overwhelming agricultural sup-
port for TPP, some anti-trade
groups attempted to follow
suit with anti-TPP messaging
that tried to paint the U.S. beef
industry in a negative light re-
garding trade agreements.
In addition to ominous and
misleading graphics, many of
the statements were repack-
aged old arguments that have
been refuted but would lead
one to believe that trade agree-
ments have created a mas-
sive trade deicit for the beef
industry.
It is important that we un-
derstand and dismiss the half-
truths they are telling the pub-
lic.
As an attempt to downplay
the upside of tariff removal and
science-based standards that
TPP will bring, TPP opponents
claim the agreement will open
the lood gates for beef imports
to the U.S. and drive down cat-
tle prices.
They also say the trade agree-
ments are the major cause of the
deicit.
Key factors
While it is true that we
have trade agreements with
three of our four largest import
Guest
comment
Kevin Kester
countries and the fourth coun-
try, New Zealand, is also TPP
country, there are a few key
factors that the TPP opponents
conveniently fail to mention
and several blatantly mislead-
ing statements being spread.
First, major beef import
sources — Australia, New Zea-
land, Canada, Mexico — for
the U.S. market are TPP coun-
tries that already face low to
no tariffs and large quotas. TPP
will not remove any massive
barriers to the U.S. market.
Canada and Mexico are
already free to ship unlimited
quantities of beef to the U.S.
under NAFTA, and even with
unrestricted access they are not
are the largest import sources.
Australia and New Zealand
have been the largest import
sources over the past few years,
and yet they have high quotas
and New Zealand faces a low
tariff rate of 4 cents per kilo-
gram.
The truth is, market demand
already determines the volume
of beef imports to the U.S.
market, and TPP is not going
to have a major impact in that
regard.
Ground beef imports
Why do we import beef
from these countries? If you
listen to the TPP opponents it
must be part of a global con-
spiracy to put U.S. beef produc-
ers out of business. But with the
exception of Canada and Mexi-
co, we don’t import high-value
muscle cuts from grain-inished
beef that compete with our pre-
mium markets, and the volume
of what we import from Cana-
da and Mexico is not enough to
displace domestic sales of U.S.
beef.
The truth is, Americans love
ground beef, and we import
grass-inished beef from Aus-
tralia and New Zealand to meet
the demand for cheaper com-
mercial ground beef. Frankly,
we have developed higher-end
cuts like the lat iron steak that
yield greater return than ground
beef, so we must import that
same muscle from somewhere
else to make up the shortfall. So
why would packers want to put
high-quality, high-value U.S.
beef producers out of business?
It doesn’t add up.
Perfect storm
Back to the trade deicit ar-
gument. TPP opponents have
conveniently failed to mention
some of the key economic fac-
tors that led to the beef trade
deicit in 2015.
Last year was tough for U.S.
beef exports. We had seen a
steady $5 billion increase in
export sales from 2006 to 2014
only to drop off $800 million in
2015.
When you combine the
strength of the U.S. dollar with
commercial problems access-
ing Hong Kong, which had
been a $1 billion market, the
tremendous labor slowdown at
West Coast ports, and the liq-
uidation of the Australian beef
herd due to drought (similar to
what the U.S. industry faced in
2012-2013), you had a perfect
storm with a direct hit on U.S.
beef exports.
If it were not for access we
had to other markets, especially
markets with whom we have
free trade agreements, the im-
pact could have been much
worse because we would not
have had an outlet for our ex-
ports.
When all else fails, trade
opponents say all of the proits
are enjoyed by the packers and
retailers with little to no bene-
it for producers. According to
USDA’s data, in 2015, exports
accounted for nearly $325 per
head in overall sales of inished
steers and heifers. Those proits
are shared throughout the pro-
duction chain and are relected
in the overall value of cattle.
Until recently, we have
enjoyed record prices for live-
stock and that has been a com-
bination of limited supply and
record demand, especially in
foreign markets. It is hard to
dismiss $325 per head.
Eliminating barriers
The truth is, trade agree-
ments do not guarantee suc-
cess and neither do protection-
ist high tariffs or other trade
barriers. Trade agreements
eliminate barriers so we have
the freedom and ability to meet
market demand for our goods
when conditions are ripe.
These calls for protection-
ist market interventions may
sound good on the political
stage, but are dangerous and
short-sighted ideas that turn
our focus solely toward pro-
tecting the domestic market
instead of capitalizing on the
growing foreign consumer
base.
If we listen to these si-
ren calls and decide to focus
exclusively on the U.S. con-
sumer base, we will under-
cut our ability to compete for
growing foreign demand from
the 95 percent of consumers
who live outside our borders
and pay a premium for our
product.
Unspoken message
Perhaps the most important
message is what TPP oppo-
nents did not say. If we fail to
take advantage of TPP, we will
lose our greatest export market
and failing to act on TPP will
do nothing to stop beef imports
from other countries.
Our leading competitor in
the Japanese beef market is
Australia. In January 2015 the
Japan-Australia Trade Agree-
ment took effect and gave our
leading competitors a 10 per-
cent tariff advantage over us
in our leading export market.
In other words, the Japanese
tariff on U.S. beef is 38.5 per-
cent and the Japanese tariff on
Australian beef is less than 28
percent.
This disadvantage for
U.S. beef resulted in near-
ly $300 million in lost sales
in Japan in 2015. The tariff
rate advantage for Australia
will continue to grow for the
next decade unless something
is done to level the playing
ield.
The good news is TPP will
level the playing ield for U.S.
beef in Japan by lowering the
tariff rate on U.S. beef to match
Australia’s tariff rate upon im-
plementation and will continue
to decrease to 9 percent over
16 years. This the greatest beef
market access ever negotiated
into Japan — and that is the
whole truth.
Kevin Kester is vice
president of the National
Cattlemen’s Beef Association.
He’s a cattle producer from
Parkield, Calif.
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. Emailed letters are
preferred and require less time to process, which could result in quicker
publication. Letters also may be sent to P.O. Box 2048, Salem, OR 97308;
or by fax to 503-370-4383.