6
CapitalPress.com
Editorials are written by or
approved by members of the
Capital Press Editorial Board.
October 7, 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
Our choice for Washington’s governor: Bryant
I
f dollars were votes, Democrat
Jay Inslee would easily win a
second term as Washington’s
governor. He has raised more
than $8 million for his re-election
campaign.
By comparison, Republican
challenger Bill Bryant has raised
only about $3 million, stacking
the political odds against him.
But this election isn’t about
money. It’s about leadership, and
the willingness to work for both
sides of the state. And it’s about
pragmaticism, not pie-in-the-sky
schemes to save the planet on the
backs of Washington farmers,
businesses and consumers.
That’s why we support Bryant.
Inslee is a westside politician.
His supporters are there, and
so is their money. A review of
his state campaign contribution
report shows the vast majority
of his 29,725
contributions came
from the westside.
We counted
a little more
than two dozen
contributions
from people who
identifi ed themselves
as either farmers or
ranchers — and one of them
had a Seattle address.
To put that in perspective,
1,153 of Inslee’s contributions
came from people identifying
themselves as attorneys.
Some 7,027 of Inslee’s
contributions came from Seattle,
which has a population of
608,660, versus 785 that came
from Spokane, the second largest
city in the state with a population
of 208,916.
That tells us what we could
expect in a second
Inslee term — more
westside ideas
such as the carbon
cap, which he has
ordered the state
Department of
Ecology to cook
up without including
the legislature, and
more regulations on dairies
and other facets of agriculture.
On the other hand, Bryant
knows and understands farming,
business and trade. He was a
Seattle port commissioner and
has owned a trade consultancy
for two decades. He is also a
familiar face on the eastside
of Washington. More than 250
contributions to his campaign
have come from farmers,
ranchers, fruit growers and
processors.
They trust Bryant to work for
them and other interests around
the state that count on a square
deal.
A square deal is not what
the Washington wheat industry
got from Inslee in 2014.
The governor sided with the
International Longshore Workers
Union in its dispute with the
United Grain Co. terminal in
Longview. His employees, state
Department of Agriculture grain
inspectors, were harassed and
threatened by ILWU members.
Instead of continuing to protect
the grain inspectors and arresting
and prosecuting the perpetrators,
Inslee withdrew state patrol
protection. That forced the
company either to cease
operations or bow to the union.
That in turn put much of the
$1 billion Washington wheat
O UR V IEW
VOTE ‘NO’
on Oregon Measure 97
O
regon voters in November must reject
97, a full $4.1 billion of the tax will be passed
Measure 97, the gross receipts tax
on to consumers in the form of higher prices or
measure on the ballot.
reduced wages and opportunities.
The measure — pushed by public
It seems businesses don’t pay
taxes, but consumers do.
employee unions, education and
In addition to the big box
health care advocates and other
retailers and the Fortune 500 the
liberal interests — proposes
tax would hit a whole bunch
Oregon’s largest tax hike
of iconic Oregon brands
ever. It would impose on
such as Powell’s
“C” corporations an
Books and Wilco.
additional 2.5 percent
The burgeoning
tax on gross sales in
software industry
Oregon exceeding
that has of late
$25 million.
fueled Portland’s
The measure is
boom would be
expected to raise
particularly hard hit, as
$3 billion each
all of their sales originate here.
year, or $6 billion
Because Measure 97 taxes
for the biennial
gross receipts, not net
budget cycle.
profi ts, low-margin
At fi rst blush,
businesses with the
Measure 97 seems
requisite sales will
like a no brainer. The
pay whether they
state faces a $1.5 billion
make money or
shortfall in the coming
not. In that case,
biennium as it assumes more of
the tax bill will
the costs of expanded Medicare under
come out of
the Affordable Care Act
reserves.
and struggles to
Nonetheless,
cover shortfalls
supporters argue
in the Public
Measure 97 is all
Employees
for the kids, the old
Retirement System
and the sick.
fund.
But the Legislature’s
An extra $6 billion
lawyers say lawmakers can
would seem to solve
spend the money any way they
those problems, plus put
want. An extra $6 billion will go
more money into schools and
through the Legislature like guano
other programs that have been short-
through a goose. While the public
changed since the Great Recession.
employee unions will benefi t and
But when you dig deeper, the
government will expand to sop up
measure’s problems are apparent.
the money, we doubt many of the problems
Supporters of Measure 97 fondly point out
facing the state will be solved.
that 70 percent of the companies that would
We would prefer the Legislature take stock
directly pay the tax are not domiciled in Oregon,
of the state’s needs and present a reasoned
and include big retailers, big banks, big oil, big
reform of Oregon’s
electricity, big pharm
fi nances that includes
— huge, greedy
By the Legislature’s analysis of Measure 97,
specifi c targeted
companies carrying
a
full
$4.1
billion
of
the
tax
will
be
passed
on
outcomes for
away Beaver State
revenue increases.
boodle to Arkansas,
to consumers in the form of higher prices or
To facilitate its
Wall Street and
reduced wages and opportunities. It seems
passage, Measure
Moline.
businesses don’t pay taxes, but consumers do. 97 supporters
The big retailers
have picked a
that would be hit
small segment of businesses to paint as
— Walmart, Walgreens, Safeway, Target, etc.
unsympathetic targets of their tax. But if
— account for 88 percent of the retail sales in
passed, Oregonians and many of the state’s
Oregon, making Measure 97 a fairly broad-based
iconic brands will fall victim.
sales tax. By the Legislature’s analysis of Measure
industry at risk. Upwards of 90
percent of the wheat grown in
the state is exported, and none
of it can be shipped until it is
inspected.
Inslee’s favoritism toward
the ILWU also emboldened
the union later that year to
embark on a fi ve-month
work slowdown at container
ports that cost Washington
farmers and processors $770
million, according to a study
by the Washington Council on
International Trade.
Washington agriculture
can’t afford Inslee’s brand of
“leadership.”
It’s time for a change in
Washington’s Capitol. It’s time
for someone who knows and
understands agriculture, trade and
business.
That candidate is Bill Bryant.
Hope emerges in
Wash. wolf controversy
By SHELLY SHORT
and JOEL KRETZ
Guest
comment
For the Capital Press
Shelly Short and Joel Kretz
olf confl ict in Amer-
ica is a century old
tradition with the
recent Ground Zero centered
in northeast Washington. We
represent the 7th Legislative
District, currently home to
15 of the 19 confi rmed wolf-
packs in Washington.
In other words, one legis-
lative district, out of 49 state-
wide, houses over 75 percent
of the confi rmed packs in
Washington.
For us, the impact isn’t
theoretical; it is real, intense
and immediate.
Historically, the pendulum
has taken radical swings, from
a goal of complete eradication
in the past century to currently
conferring virtual sainthood
status upon wolves, in some
circles. We believe neither
extreme is realistic, and hope
that we can do better.
To be blunt, wolf recov-
ery has not been popular in
northeast Washington, and
it’s much deeper than simply
a wolf advocate-versus-cat-
tleman confl ict. Our commu-
nities fear that our whole cul-
ture, our largely rural, pastoral
way of life is on the verge of
disappearing. Until those very
real fears are recognized, vali-
dated and respected there will
be no resolution to the wolf
confl ict.
We do feel there’s a grudg-
ing but growing acceptance of
the notion of coexisting with
wolves on a managed basis.
There is willingness to ex-
plore nonlethal deterrents as
long as they are practical and
effective, as opposed to inef-
fectual, bureaucratic hoops to
jump through.
But there is one non-ne-
gotiable sticking point where
there has been a little lip ser-
vice but no agreement in the
past. When a pack of wolves
does not respond to reasonable
nonlethal deterrents and be-
comes a chronic threat, it must
be removed. Period. There will
be no social acceptance in ru-
ral Washington without that.
In early 2015, we got a
glimmer of hope. During a
meeting with several infl u-
ential environmental groups,
they stated that as much as
they hated the idea of a sin-
gle wolf dying, they realized
that there were times that it
was necessary, and they said
as long as nonlethal deterrents
were used fi rst they would de-
fend that publicly.
Now remember, these were
the same groups that we and
our predecessors had been in
a running gun battle with on
a wide range of issues for de-
cades.
And as past events indicate
future trends, we cynically
predicted that when things
got tough they would bail, or
another environmental group
W
would sue. They replied that
this was a position their boards
had taken and that they were
willing to stand and take the
heat. I don’t recall a feeling of
great optimism, but it cracked
open a door.
Now fast forward to Au-
gust 2016 and the unfortunate
situation that played out in
Ferry County. We’re not go-
ing to get into all the reasons
or the history; it’s a complex
situation that’s begs for more
than 30-second sound bites.
But we think all factions will
agree it was a tragic situation.
Last month, the depredations
on livestock met, and then ex-
ceeded, the bar laid out in the
Wolf Plan to trigger lethal re-
moval.
Having been down this road
before, our local communities,
ranchers, and Washington De-
partment of Fish and Wildlife
staff braced for the inevitable
onslaught of death threats, vile
acts of intimidation, offensive
editorials and infl ammatory
comments.
Crickets. …
Then came a statement
from the same environmen-
tal groups noting that while
they were heartbroken at the
death of a wolf, they recog-
nized that it was sometimes
necessary and that they were
backing WDFW and the lethal
removal protocol. This was
unprecedented, and we saw a
glimmer of hope in the eyes
of our neighbors for the fi rst
time in years. Given the histo-
ry here, this isn’t an easy thing
to say, but we believe in giving
credit where credit’s due, and
we deeply appreciate these
groups’ efforts to fi nd common
ground.
Unfortunately, within a few
days, others chose to infl ame
a complex, diffi cult situation
threatening thousands of hours
of hard work and real progress.
We believe there has been too
much progress made to allow
the discussion to be dominated
by extremist views, from all
sides.
We have hope that there is a
path to stable wolf populations
that also promote a vibrant
ranching culture and thriving
rural communities. And as
long as those goals are funda-
mental to the discussion, we
welcome a public lands graz-
ing conversation. These issues
have been dominated for years
by various factions lobbing
verbal grenades resulting in
vilifi cation of good people and
unacceptable stalemate.
There is a tenuous path for-
ward to balanced solutions that
hinges on respect for values of
others. We believe it’s worth a
try.
State Reps. Shelly Short
and Joel Kretz represent the
7th Legislative District in
northeastern Washington.