6
CapitalPress.com
Editorials are written by or
approved by members of the
Capital Press Editorial Board.
March 31, 2017
All other commentary pieces are
the opinions of the authors but
not necessarily this newspaper.
Opinion
O ur V iew
Editorial Board
Publisher
Editor
Managing Editor
John Perry
Joe Beach
Carl Sampson
opinions@capitalpress.com Online: www.capitalpress.com/opinion
Washington’s Voluntary
Stewardship Program
begins to take shape
By JAMES GOCHE’
For the Capital Press
W
Associated Press File
President Donald
Trump has proposed a
reduction in the USDA
budget for next year,
but it’s Congress that
ultimately writes the
federal spending plan.
Trump ag budget cuts just
beginning of process
T
he Trump administration
has proposed a
21 percent cut in
discretionary spending for the
Department of Agriculture, and
ag interests are grumbling.
We understand the concerns,
but it’s too soon in the process
to get too excited.
Here are the facts.
The president’s plan cuts
$4.7 billion from the current
budget for non-entitlement
programs that are implemented
by appropriation bills rather
than enshrined in permanent
law. Trump’s plan still allocates
$17.9 billion for these types of
programs. (Our colleagues at
Politico framed that figure as
“just” $17.9 billion, suggesting
that it’s not a significant amount
of money.)
The Trump budget cuts
money for rural water and
wastewater infrastructure loans,
would reduce county ag service
offices, eliminate spending
on ag statistics, and end the
International Food for Education
program.
None of the proposed cuts
would impact spending on the
so-called “mandatory” programs
— the crop programs and
welfare expenditures that make
up $130 billion of the USDA’s
current budget of $155 billion.
We would not suggest
that some of these proposed
cuts could cause problems
for farmers and ranchers.
In many cases the statistics
produced by the USDA are
the only independent market
information available to
producers and the public at
large. Their loss would be a
tragedy. Similarly, not having
a local Farm Service office
would be a hassle.
We emphasize the tenuous
nature of the administration
document because the Trump
plan lacks much detail.
The traditional, full-budget
document is said to be coming
in May.
But more importantly, the
Constitution gives the president
absolutely no authority over
producing the budget.
While the president can offer
to Congress his suggestions
for the next spending plan, and
we appreciate any president’s
considerable weight in
influencing policy, it is the
Congress that actually enacts
the budget.
Presidents of all stripes
have proposed cuts in USDA’s
budget, eliminating one
program or another to help
pay for their own spending
priorities. Then the Senate and
House ag committees step in,
and individual members use
their influence to sway their
colleagues to save or expand
favored programs.
While the president’s budget
proposals have to be given due
weight, we’ve seen too many of
these plans wither on the vine
to get too excited now over
Trump’s allocations.
Readers’ views
Another side
to the wolf
death story
OR48, a recently col-
lared male Canadian Grey
wolf of the Shamrock Pack
here in Wallowa County
died as a result of biting
into a cyanide powder trap
set for coyotes. This coy-
ote trap was set by a USDA
Wildlife Service trapper. It
was set on private property.
Of course there has been
a chorus of outraged howl-
ing put up by those who
have no working knowl-
edge or personal invest-
ment in the management or
removal of predators.
Even Oregon Depart-
ment of Fish and Wildlife
expressed their shock and
dismay that the un-intend-
ed, or “incidental taking” of
a Canadian Grey wolf has
occurred.
This shock and dismay
is odd given the history of
ODFW’s behavior regard-
ing their management of the
predatory wolves.
A quick examination of
ODFW’s management of
the Shamrock pack reveals
numerous wolf/livestock
depredation investigations
being performed. The ma-
jority of these “investiga-
tions” resulted in livestock
killings being categorized
anything but a confirmed
wolf-caused killing. Coy-
otes or “other” predators
were suggested as being the
culprits responsible for the
loss of livestock.
If it is deemed by ODFW
that most all livestock kill-
ing problems can be laid at
the feet of coyote or “oth-
er” reasons who may argue
with them? From person-
al experience challenging
ODFW thought process can
be a mostly futile effort.
There has been a near-re-
fusal by ODFW to share
collar GPS location data
with area livestock owners.
One can assume U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service em-
ployees are also kept in the
same degree of “black-out”
information silence.
A requested lethal re-
moval of livestock killing/
harassing Shamrock Ca-
nadian Grey wolves was
refused outright by ODFW
decision-makers,
even
though all Oregon Wolf
Conservation and Manage-
ment Plan requirements had
been met and even exceed-
ed by the Shamrock pack
for such a take. This ODFW
refusal gave the impression
the Shamrock pack was
not and should not be of
concern to private property
owners.
There is also the fact
private property owners are
in no way obligated to pro-
vide habitat or safety zones
for Oregon’s latest predator
newcomer. This is stated in
the Oregon Wolf Conserva-
tion and Management Plan,
page 10, Chapter One.
It is actually an Oregon
Statute; ORS 496.192(1).
“Nothing in the Oregon
ESA is intended, by itself,
to require an owner of any
private land to take action
to protect a threatened spe-
cies or an endangered spe-
cies, or to impose additional
requirements or restrictions
on the use of private land.”
So, the coyote trap was
set on private property, and
lo and behold … a Sham-
rock pack Canadian Grey
wolf was caught in the very
trap set for coyotes. Maybe
the same coyotes who were
getting blamed for livestock
killings?
Given these facts, it
looks like this Incidental
Take can ultimately be laid
at the feet of ODFW.
Justice sometimes pre-
vails.
Kerry Tienhaara
Oregon Wolf Education
Joseph, Ore.
There are other
ways to fight
Japanese beetles
In the February issue of
the Capital Press, I was hor-
rified to see that the Oregon
Department of Agriculture
is proposing to treat 1,000
acres in Bethany and the Ce-
dar Mills areas of Washing-
ton County with acelepryn
to battle the Japanese bee-
tle. They propose spreading
granules of acelepryn over
the lawns of 2,500 private
residences, parks and golf
courses, each being treated
yearly for 5 years.
Has the Oregon Depart-
ment of Agriculture still not
learned that pesticide use
does not control pests? In
the long term pests become
resistant to pesticides which
leads to heavier applications
of the pesticides or the search
for new poisons. Pesticides
may kill the insect targeted
but the constant low level of
pesticide exposure to other
species (including humans)
can be devastating.
Pesticide granules in
lawns would expose birds,
children, pets and other
beneficial insects to its tox-
ic effects. After a rain these
pesticides enter the water
system polluting streams and
rivers. On the packaging for
acelepryn it states drift and
runoff may be hazardous to
aquatic organisms. Then also
being hazardous to the ani-
mals, birds and humans who
might consume the fish of
these streams.
It is well known that pes-
ticide exposure can affect re-
productive rates of birds and
cause birth defects. I often
wonder why 1 in 66 children
being born are affected with
a form of autism. Could it be
due to the decades of low le-
ver pesticide exposure?
There are safer alterna-
tives to battle the Japanese
beetle. The bacterial disease
known as Milky disease was
successfully used to con-
trol the beetle in 14 eastern
states back in the 1940s. A
parasitic wasp (Tiphia Veru-
alis) has also been beneficial
in controlling the Japanese
beetle. These methods may
take longer to gain control,
but will not be polluting the
environment while they are
working.
Humans need to work
with nature, not against her.
If we don’t, humans will be
the ultimate losers. I would
encourage the citizens of
Washington County to re-
fuse the treatments of your
yards, parks and schools. I
would also recommend the
Department of Agriculture
read Rachel Carson’s “Si-
lent Spring.”
Kim Tinker
Family Nurse Practitioner
Sandy, Ore.
ashington state’s
Voluntary
Stewardship
Program (VSP) passed a
milestone on March 8 when
Thurston County became
the first VSP pilot project
to submit a final draft work
plan for review and approval
by the Washington State
Conservation Commission.
Close behind is Chelan
County, the second of two
pilot projects commissioned
by the Legislature, which is
scheduled to submit its work
plan later this month.
After this, the majority of
Washington’s counties will be
following suit over the next
several years and VSP will
take root across the state.
VSP is a ground-break-
ing program enacted by the
Washington State Legislature
in 2011 that requires the 27
counties that “opted in” to de-
velop a voluntary process for
meeting the State’s Growth
Management Act’s goals of
supporting and enhancing
agriculture and protecting
critical areas in watersheds
designated by the county
commission.
The program is an alterna-
tive to GMA regulations and
enforcement actions, and the
litigation that it has encour-
aged in recent years.
VSP requires that agricul-
ture and environmental pro-
tection be treated with equal
importance and that local
communities work togeth-
er cooperatively to develop
metrics and benchmarks that
can be used to determine if
the program’s goals are being
met.
In 2014, the two pilot
project counties reached out
to members of agricultural
organizations, environmen-
tal groups, Native American
Tribes and others to ask for
representatives to serve on
local VSP Watershed Groups.
These Watershed Groups
were then given the daunting
responsibility of developing a
draft Work Plan that turns an
idea (voluntary stewardship)
into to a working program.
Data collection was one
of the first priorities for Work
Plan development and the
Thurston County Watershed
Group (TCWG) quickly dis-
covered that while there was
a great deal of information
available about critical areas
and related environmental is-
sues, local agricultural data
was spotty, incomplete and
often out of date.
TCWG’s solution was to
create two subcommittees —
a Technical Team comprised
of environmental interests
and government agency
staffers to compile critical
area data, and an Agricultur-
al Viability Subcommittee
comprised of local farmers,
economists and educators to
define “local agriculture” and
figure out what it needs to be
viable.
Over the next two years,
the subcommittee conducted
a national literature search
with the help of county staff,
consulted a variety of experts
and conducted several work
sessions with local agricul-
tural producers and business-
es. As a result, it came to
several conclusions that have
now been incorporated into
Guest
comment
James Goche
the Thurston VSP Work Plan
draft.
The first was that farm-
ing and ranching rely on a
healthy and growing “agri-
cultural economy” to sustain
their operations. Agricultural
producers need a reasonable
return on their investment
of time and money in order
to stay in business and keep
“working lands” working.
Secondly, the subcom-
mittee identified five critical
elements that are necessary
for “agricultural viability.”
The categories that these el-
ements fall into are 1) Land,
2) Water, 3) Infrastructure, 4)
Regulatory Reform, and 5)
Access to Markets, Finance
and Information.
Finally, the subcommittee
created a two-track approach
for assessing the “value” of
local agriculture. The first
track involves a “market
analysis” of agricultural
economic activity to deter-
mine the contributions that it
makes to the local economy.
The second track assess-
es the “social or community
values” that local agriculture,
especially food production,
represents in order to capture
its non-monetary worth. The
latter was deemed important
because it accounts for why
people are willing to “buy
local,” sometimes at higher
prices, and helps capture all
of the many benefits that lo-
cal agriculture brings to the
communities that it supports.
One other important fea-
ture of the Thurston plan is
the notion of “adaptive man-
agement.” VSP is a new and
innovative approach for sup-
porting agriculture and pro-
tecting the environment and
so its implementation will
have to be dynamic, starting
with the best information
available and then filling
in the gaps through lessons
learned. During an informal
review of the Thurston plan
in January, one member of
the state review panel wry-
ly noted that creating a VSP
program is much like “pas-
sengers flying in an airplane
while they are still in the pro-
cess of constructing it.”
The Thurston VSP Work
Plan draft received good
marks and positive feedback
during its preliminary review
and is now before the State
Conservation Commission
for final action. The Commis-
sion has 45 days to act and if
both the Thurston and Chelan
plans are approved and re-
ceive Legislative funding for
implementation, Washington
State should have active VSP
programs underway on both
sides of the Cascades by this
summer with more to follow
in the coming years.
The author is a volunteer
member of the Thurston
Watershed Group and has been
serving as the chair of the Agri-
cultural Viability Subcommittee.
He is the managing partner of
Friendly Grove Farm in Olympia,
Wash., and is a former member
of the Thurston Conservation
District Board of Supervisors. In
a former life, he helped one of
Washington’s larger counties en-
force environmental regulations
as a deputy prosecutor.
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 submission. Longer pieces, 500-750 words, may be
considered as guest commentary pieces for use on the opinion
pages. Guest commentary 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.