6
CapitalPress.com
February 24, 2017
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
John Perry
Joe Beach
Carl Sampson
opinions@capitalpress.com Online: www.capitalpress.com/opinion
O UR V IEW
Washington doesn’t need more publicly owned land
W
ith all the heated talk
over the last year about
how much of the West
is tied up in public lands, the last
thing we thought we’d hear is
an elected offi cial talk about the
need to tie up more.
But we weren’t thinking of
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee.
Jon Snyder, the governor’s
policy adviser on outdoor
recreation and economic
development, told legislators
last week that the state budget
offi ce projects Washington will
grow by 1 million people in the
next decade. What will those
new residents want? More public
lands on which to hunt, fi sh,
hike, bike, camp and otherwise
recreate.
“If we do grow, the possibility
for needing more public lands
does increase,” said Snyder,
who said he was also speaking
on behalf of the Department of
Natural Resources, Department
of Fish and Wildlife, Parks and
Recreation, and the Recreation
and Conservation Offi ce.
The administration worries
that a roughly 14 percent increase
in the state’s population — from
7.06 million to 8.06 million —
would crowd existing public
lands and degrade the experience.
By any objective measure,
there is no shortage of public land
in Washington.
DNR, WDFW and Parks and
Recreation own 6.4 million acres,
or about 14 percent of the state,
according to a 2014 state land
inventory. The federal government
owns 12.7 million acres in
Washington, or 28 percent of the
state.
There are 139 state parks,
ranging in size from the half-acre
Rothschild House State Park in
Jefferson County to the 13,919
acres of Mount Spokane State Park.
Washington state is home to
three national parks — Olympic,
North Cascades and Mount Rainer.
Those areas of the Cascades not
a part of a national park are
national forest land from the
Columbia River to the Canadian
border. There are nine national
forests, 23 national wildlife
refuges and three national
monuments.
Viewed on a per capita basis,
there is .9 acres of state land per
Washingtonian now. It will drop
to .79 acres if the population
increases by a million. Add in
federal land and it’s 2.7 acres
per person now, 2.36 acres if the
population increases.
Just how much more land is
required has not been stated. To
maintain the current per capita
fi gure, Washington would have to
buy another 845,000 acres.
We doubt anyone is seriously
considering that kind of land
grab. Probably.
But that’s not the point. Each
acre the state takes comes off the
tax rolls and out of other useful
production. The state owns more,
individuals own less.
Rural Washington generally,
and Washington agriculture
specifi cally, pay the price when
the local economy turns from
producing and processing
agricultural products to the
service-sector jobs fostered
by tourism. Rural Washington
can be much more than a just a
playground for Seattle metroplex.
Enough is enough.
Why President Trump
needed to reject TPP
O UR V IEW
Idaho legislators
should leave
dyed fuel alone
By CLINT DIDIER
For the Capital Press
A
s a second-generation
farmer here in “Hell to
Pay” (Eltopia) Wash-
ington, I am thankful our new
commander-in-chief, President
Donald Trump, saw the errone-
ous Trans-Pacifi c Partnership
agreement for what it was and
took America’s participation off
the table.
As I was raised to be a
Constitution-loving patriot of
America, I was appalled to see
this 5,500-plus page collabora-
tion supported by so many of
our elected offi cials and fellow
citizens, including some of my
fellow farmers and farm organi-
zations.
My family farms alfalfa and
Timothy hay. We rely on foreign
trade to keep our bottom line in
the black. Article 30 and 31 of
the TPP agreement would have
imposed quotas on U.S. agri-
cultural goods being exported
to foreign countries. As an ag-
ricultural producer, you would
be dealing with a foreign gov-
ernment entity that would issue
certifi cates of purchase rather
than you personally dealing with
your buyer.
S
ome Idaho legislators have convinced themselves that
the state needs to clamp down on the scoundrels who
use untaxed dyed diesel fuel in their cars and trucks.
They looked at a report that estimated dyed fuel cheaters
were costing the state $3 million to $15 million and decided
that the state is missing out.
To counter such egregious activities, some
legislators propose Senate Bill 1072, which
would deputize various state employees to
enforce the dyed diesel law. Under current
law, only off-road vehicles such as tractors,
combines and logging and mining equipment
can use the dyed diesel and thus save the
operators 32 cents a gallon in state fuel taxes
and 24.4 cents in federal taxes.
We have a hard time accepting the premise
that cheating the system is as widespread as
proponents of the new system believe. We also
have a hard time believing that the state would
recoup in fines the cost of such a system.
But as bad as it is, that system is better than another
proposal, Senate Bill 1052. Under it, there would be
no dyed diesel in Idaho. Farmers, miners and loggers
would have to keep receipts and other proof that diesel
fuel was used in off-road equipment and submit them
each month or annually to receive a tax refund.
Such a paper mill would be one more example of how
government, even with the best of intentions, can turn a
bad idea into a terrible one.
Worse yet, just a few minutes of pondering uncovers
loopholes in the proposal big enough to drive a combine
through. Anyone who owns off-road equipment could
presumably fi le for tax refunds on any fuel he or
she bought. It would be up to the state to ferret out if
someone was overstating off-road fuel use. Thankfully,
SB 1052 died quietly in the Capitol this week.
We think the current system is fi ne. While not perfect,
it’s effi cient and the vast majority of farmers, miners and
loggers play by the rules.
To empower state employees to check on them or to
install an unenforceable system in its place doesn’t make
sense in terms of cost, effort or outcome.
Loss of power
TPP was slated to be an
agreement between 12 coun-
tries, each having one vote and
each having an equal power
in any dispute. In Article 27,
members of Congress, both
House and Senate, who sup-
ported and endorsed this agree-
ment neutered themselves of
power involving foreign trade.
They would have granted the
Trans-Pacifi c Partner Commis-
sion more power than is wielded
by our own Congress.
Why would Congress even
consider giving up our sov-
ereignty as a nation through
any agreement or treaty? This
document, secretly contrived
and written to exist as a living,
evolving document that could
be altered on a whim, certainly
was not in our nation’s best in-
terest.
Climate change
Thinkstockphotos.com
Readers’ views
Science, politics
and agriculture
Last week’s story, “Shrink
the EPA?” was interesting and
alarming at the same time.
Mr. Lehr made some interest-
ing claims and strategies on
reducing the size and scope of
the EPA, and includes turning
over the agency’s responsibil-
ities to the individual states.
It would be unfair for me
to comment on the wisdom of
reducing regulations on pesti-
cides and fertilizers. I’ll let the
experts have that debate.
As a farmer I agree that
too many urban residents do
not have a realistic appreci-
ation of what it takes to pro-
duce our crops and keep their
bellies full. I try to keep an
open mind, but that said, his
statement that “man does not
control the temperature of our
planet” betrays an ideology
that precludes a basic respect
for science. Sad!
David Nemarnik
Sherwood, Ore.
HB 2469 good
for Oregon ag
Local jurisdictions should
be permitted to determine
what is in their local interest.
There is no great harm in rec-
ognizing differences between
the Rogue Valley and the Wil-
lamette Valley or Eastern Or-
egon. Rogue Valley farmers
have different markets and
priorities. In California, 6 or
7 Counties have restrictions
on GMO planting, while
the others do not. This mix
has allowed California agri-
culture to serve a variety of
markets.
Jackson and Josephine
counties together make a
logical boundary for a GMO
restriction zone. In this area,
the tractor brigades came
out in support of restrictions
on GMO plantings and the
voters passed the county
measures by wide margins
on May 20, 2014. Seed
buyers for organics will not
take seed with even small
amounts of engineered con-
tent. They don’t need to.
Russia and Europe will pro-
vide seed that is GMO free if
we cannot.
With fi ndings from the
World Health Organization
and in California that gly-
phosate is a probable carcin-
ogen, and the labeling and
restrictions that are sure to
follow, the premium for non-
GMO crops will only grow.
More counties may wish to
take advantage, and let farm-
ers earn that premium. Other
counties will not. It should
be their choice. Local con-
trol lets us do what is best
for local residents and local
agriculture.
Jonathan Spero
Lupine Knoll Farm
Grants Pass, Ore.
Article 20.4 was a vehicle to
pass Obama’s Climate Change
Treaty. What the hell is climate
change doing in a trade agree-
ment? Since farmers and ranch-
ers are heavy “fossil fuel” con-
sumers, I fi nd this to be another
attack on our bottom line with a
burdensome carbon tax threat.
With current agricultural
commodity prices at a trou-
bling low, (partially due to the
West Coast port slowdown that
our then fearless leader failed
to act upon) I think you can
see my concern. Article 18 of
TPP reduced one’s property of
thought or “patent” by reducing
the length–of-time protection.
Farmers and ranchers are al-
ways using the matter between
their ears to fi gure out a better,
more effi cient, or more eco-
nomic way of getting their work
done. Innovation, creativity, and
a “get ’er done” attitude has led
the way of ideas, or “patents”
to be fi led for the protection of
American inventions.
Why would we allow in-
Guest
comment
Clint Didier
novation to be punished? U.S.
innovation is far superior to the
world-stage of ideas because of
our freedom.
Agriculture across the U.S.
is dependent on being able
to secure workers in a timely
manner to plant, manage and
harvest our agricultural prod-
ucts. Article l0 and Article 12
would allow companies the
ability to legally bring in for-
eign workers. This not only
robs agricultural jobs but af-
fects jobs in all of America.
Let’s face facts. Not every-
one wants to sit behind a desk
or pick up an unemployment
check. Many Americans want a
purpose in life and embrace the
three pillars of American excep-
tionalism: rugged individual-
ism, self-reliance and personal
responsibility. So why do we al-
low our hard-earned tax dollars
to be used as a means to bring
in foreigners who do not always
want to assimilate to American
values and principles? We have
a vast number of teens who
could sure use an opportunity to
learn the work ethic and grasp
the value of earning a buck and
spending a buck!
Red fl ag
The TPP agreement con-
tained only 5 chapters dealing
with trade out of 29. That fact
alone should have raised a red
fl ag. Certainly 5,500-plus pages
would be hard for any congress-
man or woman to digest and
comprehend.
But instead our Congress
gave President Obama “Fast
Track Authority.” From being
an immigration Trojan horse,
eventually merging America
with China and Russia, giving
unelected international tribunals
more power than our own Con-
gress, it is hoped you can see
why President Trump canceled
America’s participation in this
disastrous agreement.
One segment on food label-
ing has already passed Congress:
a repeal of COOL — Country of
Origin Labeling — on all meats.
Imported beef, pork and poultry
from foreign countries had been
labeled as such, which gave the
American consumer a choice.
No longer! So American
consumers are playing Russian
roulette with their meat pur-
chases. Our Congress has put
every American at risk. Beef has
been arriving at American ports
from Brazil, where the United
Nations last fall reported anoth-
er outbreak of hoof and mouth
disease. One of the greatest as-
sets of America is our abundant
and safe food supply. Trade
agreements such as the TPP
jeopardize that valuable asset by
jeopardizing the fi nancial viabil-
ity of the American farmer and
rancher. If America’s agricul-
tural community stays alive and
well so will this great nation!
Clint Didier is a farmer and
rancher, former congressional
candidate and two-time Super
Bowl champion from Eltopia,
Wash.