6
CapitalPress.com
Editorials are written by or
approved by members of the
Capital Press Editorial Board.
December 9, 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
Time to roll back federal regulations
P
resident-elect Donald Trump
has promised to reduce
costly regulations.
Our friends at the Heritage
Foundation this week added to the
list a review of federal regulations
that carry criminal penalties. They
make a good point.
In civics class we learned that
the legislative branch makes law,
both civil and criminal, and the
The West front of the U.S. Capitol.
executive branch enforces those
laws. Congress, for example,
the power to pass the broad
passes a law making bank
strokes of law and delegate to the
robbery a federal crime, defines
executive the details of the rules
the elements of the crime and
and regulations to implement the
establishes a penalty.
law. The case revolved around
Simple. But, as is often the
the secretary of agriculture’s
case in Washington, things are
authority to make regulations
rarely ever simple.
concerning the use of Forest
In 1911, the Supreme
Service lands for grazing and
Court held in United States v.
other purposes, and to attach
Grimwaud that Congress had
criminal and civil penalties
Wikipedia
provided by Congress for
violations of those regulations.
The ruling was a boon to
Congress, a busy institution
without time, expertise or often
particular interest in the arcane
details. More time on details
means less time for law-making.
How might that look to the voters
back home?
So, to pack in more law-
making Congress has left it
to federal agencies to make
the rules, and to decide which
violations will carry civil
penalties and which will be
federal crimes that carry jail time.
Bank robbery is a pretty
straightforward crime, and
one needs no more than an
understanding of the Eighth
Commandment to know it’s
wrong. But the violation of many
regulations that carry criminal
penalties is nowhere near as
obvious. Without any criminal
intent, an unsuspecting violator
can face jail time and criminal
fines for even the most innocuous
action.
Equally alarming is that the
number of potential criminal
violations grows annually as
agencies make more regulations.
No one really knows, but critics
say violations of as many as
300,000 regulations carry
criminal penalties.
“With little to no input from
or accountability to voters,
bureaucrats have run amok with
the power to create new crimes,”
the foundation says.
If regulations are to be
enforced, there must be penalties.
However, for all but the most
egregious violations, the threat
of civil fines should be adequate
to force compliance. Congress
should reserve for itself the
power to define federal crimes.
Citizens should demand that
accountability.
In the meantime, we agree that
the next president should curtail
the creation of new federal crimes
by bureaucratic fiat.
Speaking a little louder
to food companies
O ur V iew
By SHILOH PERRY
For the Capital Press
F
Courtesy of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
The remains of a Charolais cow rest on the ground in the Colville National Forest in northeastern Washington in this picture taken July 15.
A bear was seen scavenging the carcass and ravens hovered, but enough of it remained for investigators to confirm that wolves killed the
cow. Unless they find direct evidence of a wolf attack, biologists will list it as “probable.”
A ‘probable’ suggestion
for Washington’s wolf plan
W
eather forecasters and wolf
biologists have one thing in
common.
Unless they are 100 percent sure of
something, they always waffle.
In the case of weather forecasters,
we see it all of the time. Instead
of predicting rain for tomorrow, a
skilled forecaster will say there’s
a 50 percent chance of rain. This
allows him, or her, to be half-right
no matter what the weather does —
unless it snows.
Similarly, Washington state wolf
biologists are dispatched to the scene
when cattle or sheep turn up dead.
Their job is to determine whether
wolves killed the livestock.
Unless they find wolves’ teeth
marks on the carcass, they usually
mark the kill down as a “probable”
wolf depredation. That means it
won’t count against a wolfpack that’s
attacking livestock.
In the state Wolf Conservation and
Trump election
offers glimmer
of hope
Once again I am remind-
ed of our electeds back in
Washington, D.C. not doing
their jobs.
The way I read the An-
tiquities Act, it was certain-
ly not meant to cover thou-
sands upon thousands of
acres.
I was outraged that
then-President Clinton got
Management Plan, four confirmed
attacks in a year will allow the
department to consider dispatching
all or some members of a wolfpack.
While it’s true a pile of bones
does not contain bite marks, bruising
or other direct indicators of a wolf
attack, if GPS collars, paw prints
and other information indicate a
wolfpack was in the area, it’s not
hard to reach the accurate conclusion
that wolves killed the animal.
To say that an attack was
“probable” doesn’t do justice to the
rancher, who lost hundreds of dollars
because of the kill, or anyone else.
Such pronouncements are the
equivalent of the weather forecaster
saying it will “probably” rain as the
clouds open up and a downpour starts.
We understand that both weather
forecasters and wolf biologists are
under lots of pressure. They need to
do their scientific best to keep critics
at bay.
But we also understand that
when one Washington state rancher
estimates he lost 70 head of cattle
this year to wolves, he deserves
accountability on the part of the
Washington State Department of Fish
and Wildlife.
He’s lost thousands of dollars
because of wolves, and the record
needs to reflect that.
That is why the biologists’
determination is so important. Not
only do the scientists need to know
the activities of every wolfpack, but
how the livelihoods of ranchers are
impacted.
Maybe an addition to the state
plan is warranted. We suggest
the following: “If a wolfpack is
responsible for four confirmed
or eight probable attacks, or a
combination, during a year it must be
removed.”
That would “probably” be much
more fair, and realistic.
Readers’ views
away with designating 1.9 Another idea for
million acres as a national
wolf management
monument in Utah.
Was there outrage in D.C.
over that unlawful taking?
Well, was there?
As I recall, there was only
some from the residents of
Utah.
The election of Donald
Trump has given this “Bi-
ble-carrying, gun-toting de-
plorable” a glimmer of hope.
Let us give him our support.
Marvin Reed
Reno, Nev.
Your proposal — to al-
low ranchers to pre-emp-
tively kill wolves at will
— is a sure path back to
extirpation.
How about paying the
ranchers a premium price
for wolf-killed stock and
allowing the wolves to feed
on their kills?
What are “cutter” cows
going for at auction? Even
paying “bred-heifer” pric-
es would be a bargain
from the state’s point-
of-view, considering that
they paid over $10,000 per
kill.
Idaho plans to spend
$400,000 on “wolf reduc-
tion” to “enhance” an elk
population.
Who has more right to
eat elk? A wolf or a guy
with access to a meat mar-
ket?
John Browne
Vashon Island, Wash.
ood companies and re-
tailers face tremendous
pressure to respond to
consumer expectations on
issues like animal care, envi-
ronmental protection and the
healthfulness and safety of
products.
Farmers understand this
because they too face tre-
mendous pressure to meet the
same consumer expectations.
In fact, agriculture has always
adapted in response to market
preferences. The remarkable
growth in organic agricultural
production shows that farmers
and ranchers will grow what
consumers are willing to pay
for, especially if it helps them
become more profitable.
Companies often make
quick decisions to differen-
tiate their brands and prod-
ucts without fully evaluating
the impacts of their policy
changes. Often they put out
announcements about chang-
ing their production practic-
es — changes that might not
take effect for many years but
provide an immediate halo ef-
fect — after sales fall or when
trying to overcome a public
relations crisis concerning
their products or practices.
This happens more and more
these days now that agricul-
tural policy is being made by
unelected corporate execu-
tives as much as it is by our
unproductive Congress.
Of course companies listen
to their customers, but they
also need to think about their
suppliers and the impact of
their decisions. Too often the
direction a company takes is
based on misinformation and
a broad misunderstanding of
agriculture. The results: cor-
porate sourcing standards that
insist farmers and ranchers
raise their crops and animals
in ways that are less efficient,
possibly less humane, and
definitely less sustainable.
A recent example is Dan-
non’s move to non-GMO feed
for its dairy cows. The com-
pany’s efforts were part of a
commitment to sustainability,
but the impact was a broad-
based move away from bio-
technology — meaning lower
crop yields, more tilling of the
soil and more use of insecti-
cides and stronger herbicides
than the ones widely used by
farmers today. This amounts
to less sustainability, not
more.
Farm Bureau and other ag-
ricultural groups tried to meet
with Dannon to help the com-
pany’s executives avoid mak-
Guest
comment
Shiloh Perry
ing a mistake and understand
why walking away from mod-
ern agricultural technology is
not good for the company or
its customers. We were turned
down, so the groups sent Dan-
non a letter.
“Under the guise of pro-
viding consumers more choic-
es,” the groups wrote, “your
pledge would force farmers
to abandon safe, sustainable
farming practices that have
enhanced farm productivity
over the last 20 years while
greatly reducing the carbon
footprint of American agricul-
ture.”
Dannon is not the first or
only company to make such
announcements without fully
evaluating the impacts. Too
many companies have bar-
reled forward, rather than lis-
tening to farmers and ranchers
who could have helped them
make better decisions.
Now agriculture is speak-
ing up and explaining our
narrative. The voice of agri-
culture is being heard. We are
engaging with food compa-
nies to help them see all of the
on-the-ground consequences.
When they do not listen, as
with Dannon, we call out their
actions for what they are. Of-
ten their actions are simply
based on “fear-based market-
ing.”
Farmers and ranchers have
a great story to tell on sus-
tainability. The technologies
we use are tested and proven
safe and beneficial for farm
productivity and the environ-
ment.
The Field to Market sur-
vey shows the improvements
farmers have achieved. From
1980 to 2011, U.S. rice pro-
duction grew more than 50
percent, even as irrigation
water used per acre dropped
25 percent. Cotton production
had similar growth, while 46
percent less water for irriga-
tion was used. The survey
also shows similar results for
soybeans and corn.
It is time for more food
companies and their custom-
ers to hear about those results
and learn about the true sus-
tainability of modern agricul-
ture.
When the Dannons of the
corporate world do not listen,
we turn up the volume.
Shiloh Perry is a com-
munications assistant at
the American Farm Bureau
Federation.
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 com-
mentary submissions should also include a photograph of the
author.