6
CapitalPress.com
Editorials are written by or
approved by members of the
Capital Press Editorial Board.
January 13, 2017
All other commentary pieces are
the opinions of the authors but
not necessarily this newspaper.
Opinion
Editorial Board
Publisher
Editor
Managing Editor
John Perry
Joe Beach
Carl Sampson
opinions@capitalpress.com Online: www.capitalpress.com/opinion
O UR V IEW
Inslee tries again on carbon tax
A
s Washington’s legislative
leaders look for more
money for the state’s
schools, Gov. Jay Inslee has an
idea.
He wants to tax carbon as a
way to stop climate change and
use some of the added revenue
to pay for irrigation projects as a
way to convince rural legislators
to support the tax.
The problem: Inslee’s carbon
tax does neither. He has offered
no indication of whether, or how
much, climate change would
be impacted by his tax, which
targets gasoline and other fuels.
And the inclusion of money for
irrigation projects has failed to
convince rural Republicans to
back the tax. It should also be
noted that schools would still be
Don Jenkins/Capital Press
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee would
use some of the revenue from his new
carbon tax to pay for irrigation projects
as a way to entice rural legislators to
support it.
underfunded.
The state Supreme Court has
ordered the legislature to give
more money to public schools
— billions of dollars more. The
court said that, under the state
constitution, the legislature is
required to adequately fund
education for kindergarten
through high school. The
legislature, which is in charge of
the state’s pocketbook, hasn’t yet
fi gured out a way to do that.
Inslee, however, continues to
beat the drum for a carbon tax
despite the fact that the voters
and the legislature have already
rejected the idea, most recently
in the November election,
when Initiative 732 failed by an
overwhelming 59 to 41 percent
margin.
In its current form, the $25
per ton carbon tax on fuel would
bring in $2 billion over the next
two years. Buyers and sellers
of fuel, including farmers and
ranchers, would pay the tax,
increasing their costs.
Organizations such as the
Washington State Farm Bureau
argue the tax would also force
processors and suppliers to leave
the state, and, ironically, create
more carbon emissions because
more of their products would
have to be shipped farther to
Washington customers.
Under Inslee’s tax plan, only
half of the revenue would go
toward schools, and the rest
would be held out as carrots in
the form of money for water
projects, encouraging the use of
electric cars, forest health and
“clean” energy.
If Inslee wants to spend half
the tax revenue to convince rural
Republicans to pass his plan, he
appears to have come up short.
Senate Majority Leader Mark
Schoesler, R-Ritzville, pointed
out that Initiative 732 offered
many tax breaks and other
incentives to voters, but it was
still soundly defeated.
“A sugar-coated version didn’t
do very well,” he said of the
carbon tax initiative, adding that
he doubts Inslee’s latest version
would gain any traction either.
Sen. Jim Honeyford, a
Republican from the Yakima
Valley, was more blunt in his
assessment of the outlook for the
carbon tax.
“I think the chances are slim
and none, and slim just got on the
bus to get out of town,” he said.
Time for a change
in Washington, D.C.
O UR V IEW
By LOREN STOUT
For the Capital Press
T
Research helps better
understand grazing near streams
E
nvironmental groups say
cattle grazing on public
rangeland trample and
erode streambanks and pollute
water.
But a five-year study of
cattle grazing conducted by
Oregon State University shows
cattle spend only 1 to 2.5
percent of their time in streams
or buffer areas. And rather than
ranging up and down the length
of steams in allotments, cattle
used only 10 to 25 percent of
the available stream area.
The cows typically did not
rest or graze near streams.
Instead, they spent most of
their time grazing on higher
ground or resting in dry areas
away from streams.
John Williams, an OSU
Extension rangeland expert in
Wallowa County, said cows enter
riparian areas for two reasons:
“One is to drink, the other is to
cross.”
The study was done on a
tight budget. Researchers built
their own GPS collars, which
generated location data every fi ve
minutes. They attached the collars
to 10 cows in three different
herds.
Over the course of fi ve years
they collected 3.75 million data
points.
The data show that animals
behave differently at different
points in the grazing season. And
that, Williams says, suggests that
producers could use such data to
increase the effi ciency of their
operations.
The fi ndings are potentially
signifi cant.
Now we know that cattle
probably don’t cause as much
damage to streams and riparian
areas as popularly thought, and
it’s possible to use real data to
reduce damage further by better
management.
The study shows the value of
testing assumptions, and using
what’s learned to make things
better.
We encourage OSU to
continue this line of inquiry, and
for all parties to take note.
A cow and calf drink from Catherine Creek in northeast Oregon. Using GPS tracking collars over fi ve grazing seasons on
federal land, researchers determined cows spend 1 to 2.5 percent of their time in streams.
Courtesy of Oregon State University
O UR V IEW
Sustainability and agriculture
S
peaking to reporters earlier this
“Just think about it
week, American Farm Bureau
for a minute; by using
Federation President Zippy
modern technologies,
Duvall said producers need to speak
today’s farmers grow
up and tell the public how they are
more crops on the
producing more food with less water,
same amount of land,
Zippy Duvall using less plowing and
less pesticides and less plowing.
pesticides, and feeding
“We need to take back the concept
more people.
of sustainability, because nobody
works harder on sustainability than
“By developing more uses for our
the American farmer and rancher,”
crops, like energy, we are making
he said.
our economy more sustainable.
He says agriculture has never
“If farmers don’t take care of our
been more sustainable. Here, in his
land, we cannot stay in business.
own words:
“By providing food for all
Americans, we are sustaining their
freedom — so they can pursue the
careers they are interested in.
“We have a great story to tell.
We need to take back the concept
of sustainability — because nobody
is working harder to be sustainable
than America’s farmers and
ranchers.”
All good stuff. But he saves the
money shot for last.
“For agriculture to be sustainable,
farming and ranching have to be
profi table.”
No profi t, no food. Enough said.
he presidential election of
2008 was supposed to be
one of hope and change.
After looking back on it, an ear-
ly warning sign occurred before
the election that would lead one
to question why the election
was labeled as such. That event
occurred when then-candidate
Barack Obama was caught on
an open mike stating his preju-
dice against the rural people and
their way of life.
No one dreamed at the time
this would literally put a bull’s-
eye on the back of rural people,
their jobs and even their faith.
It opened the fl ood gates to ex-
treme prejudice and in the end
a systematic effort to break the
economy of these communities
for the gain of a few.
It became legitimate to de-
monize people for what they did
for a living, especially if it led
to huge profi ts for their donors
and lobbyists. They did not even
bother to break down their prej-
udice to gender or race. They
just included everyone.
The next shot at the rural life-
style came through the regulato-
ry avenues. They made it so the
only people that benefi ted were
the paying “clients” of the elect-
ed federal and state offi cials.
Our ex-governor and fi rst lady
come to mind.
Another good example of
this was a timber consultant
that was hired by U.S. Sen. Ron
Wyden, D-Ore. They put him
on Oregon Public Broadcasting
to tell listeners how the people
of Malheur County should not
have any say in the national
monument designation facing
them.
This has led to a culture with-
in the government agencies of
total complacency. If the peo-
ple on the ground have a good
idea, they are shut up by the
threat of losing their job. They
learned fast it is the paying cli-
ents that run the show.
When U.S. Sen. Jeff Merk-
ley and Wyden recruited one
of their clients for secretary of
the Interior, the picture became
very clear what their objective
was. This woman fi t their qual-
ifi cations very well. Her job
before they paraded her around
in front of Congress was to
make sure the environmental
community could have re-
sources to put rural people and
communities out of business.
If it sounds familiar, it is ex-
actly what they are doing now
with the Malheur monument.
In the meantime, the sen-
ators were contacted by their
clients and decided to kick in
another monument designa-
tion in rural Southern Oregon.
These people are already very
much aware of how the gov-
ernment is going to put the
screws to them. It is a heck of
a money-making scheme.
Recently, it was reported
that Merkley was brokering
a deal in rural Southern Ore-
gon for the removal of dams.
Guest
comment
Loren Stout
These dams were not gov-
ernment-owned and supplied
electricity to a huge area of
Southern Oregon and Northern
California. The problem is, the
dams are owned by one of the
richest men in the world. He is
also a mega-donor to the Dem-
ocrats. If the reported terms of
this deal are correct, these rural
people may have a problem.
The owner of the dams is off
the hook for the environmen-
tal cleanup, plus the company
gets tax credits.
Not only do the rate pay-
ers and tax payers get shafted,
they are using the government
to help with making their cli-
ents extremely wealthy. This
same client is also buying up
coal companies for pennies on
the dollar. Just something to
ponder when you are trying to
fi gure out how to pay $250,000
a share for this company’s
stock. Leaves the working
class person holding the bag,
while the extremely rich en-
joy a windfall. Seems to be the
new Democratic mantra.
Today’s news brought an
expected article. Merkley was
put in a position of power with-
in the Democratic party. He
was fi nally noticed for his out-
standing work for putting rural
people and communities out of
business while making Dem-
ocratic clients happy. When
U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer
came out publicly and spewed
his disdain for rural people,
and Harry Reid called the ru-
ral people terrorists, you had to
know something was up.
Then to top it off, Hillary
Clinton said she was going to
put all the coal miners out of
business with the help of the
secretary of the Interior and
her agenda. The only thing
they forgot to include was
they have been trying to elim-
inate ranchers, farmers, log-
gers and the rest of the miners.
After the election the Dem-
ocratic party has been meet-
ing to try and fi gure out how
to get their message across
to the rural people and their
communities that mostly
have blue-color workers. U.S.
Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.,
claims it is a communication
breakdown. I do not believe
that at all. Even the state-ed-
ucated working class person
knows what the middle fi nger
means. I would have never
thought the once great Dem-
ocratic party would literally
sell the blue-collar American
worker.
I do not know what price
each person brought, but it
must have been pretty lucrative
because we are damn sure being
sold.
Loren Stout’s family has
ranched in Grant County, Ore.,
since 1878. He lives in John
Day.