6
CapitalPress.com
Editorials are written by or
approved by members of the
Capital Press Editorial Board.
May 26, 2017
Opinion
All other commentary pieces are
the opinions of the authors but
not necessarily this newspaper.
Editorial Board
Editor & Publisher
Managing Editor
Joe Beach
Carl Sampson
opinions@capitalpress.com Online: www.capitalpress.com/opinion
O UR V IEW
Organic weed battle could have been avoided
A
the problem were rebuked. He
informed the farm that unless
a weed management plan was
worked out, the county would
exercise its authority under
state law and ask the Oregon
Department of Agriculture to
quarantine the farm and have the
weeds sprayed.
Azure Standard responded by
unleashing a fi restorm on social
media, including videos of the
farm’s principals urging viewers
to express their outrage at the
county’s stance — or at least an
abridged version of the county’s
stance. That yielded nearly 57,000
emails from around the world —
all critical of the county, some
threatening. The county courthouse
phone system shut down after
being deluged with protests.
Azure Farms understandably
wanted to thwart any actions
ORE.
Area in detail
Colu
m
Wash.
Biggs
Rive
r
97
COTTON
WOOD
CANYON
STATE
PARK
hu
te s
Moro
Wash.
b ia R iver
Jo
h Ore.
er
dispute between an organic
farm and an Oregon weed
district seems to have been
settled, more or less to everyone’s
satisfaction.
There are lingering hostilities,
not only because of the farm
owners’ failure to control their
weeds over the years but in
the way they have comported
themselves as the county has
sought a resolution to the problem.
It didn’t have to go this far.
Azure Farms is a 1,922-acre
organic farm operated in Oregon’s
Sherman County by Azure
Standard, a major distributor of
organic products. Locals have
been complaining for 10 years
about serious weed problems at
the farm.
Things came to a head this
spring when local farmers renewed
complaints that Azure’s property
c
Grass
Approximate
Valley
site of Azure
Farms
GILLIAM
SHERMAN
97
5 miles
Alan Kenaga/Capital Press
is fi lled with Rush Skeleton weed,
Canada Thistle, Bindweed, White
Top and Morning Glory.
County weed control Supervisor
Rod Asher’s efforts to resolve
that could have compromised
its organic certifi cation. But its
campaign mischaracterized the
county’s position and minimized its
own responsibility for the dispute.
The record shows that before
the ultimatum Asher offered the
owners a number of options that
would have controlled the weeds
without endangering its organic
certifi cation.
As the Sherman County
commissioners were set to meet
last week to address the issue,
Azure Farms stepped back and
submitted a weed control plan that
will allow it to keep its certifi cation
and resolve the weed problem. The
owners apologized for the social
media campaign and pledged to
patch their relationship with the
community.
The county has warned it will
ask the Oregon Department of
O UR V IEW
Agriculture to quarantine the
farm if it doesn’t control rampant
noxious weeds. Asher said the
county will spray herbicide and
bill the farm for the work if the
problem is not dealt with.
State and local weed ordinances
were enacted for the good of
producers of all stripes. They
include enforcement actions when
producers don’t comply.
This is not an attack on organic
farming practices. Properly and
aggressively employed, organic
weed control methods would have
prevented this problem.
This is a question of
stewardship, and the deference
neighbors owe one another.
Azure Farms failed on both
counts. Hopefully, its owners will
keep their promise to remedy their
weed problem, and mend fences
with their neighbors.
Readers’ views
Oregon
legislature must
address loss
of farmlands,
livelihoods
ELLIOTT FOREST:
One of those Oregon things
T
126
ORE.
Area in
detail
Florence
101
Elliott
State
Forest
er
th Riv
Smi
Reedsport U
mpq
ua
R.
Lakeside
cif
ic O
cean
38
Pa
he saga of the Elliott State
Forest continues. In Oregon,
a state with 30 million acres
of forestland — almost half of its
total landmass — the state’s three
top officials have decided not to
sell a forest whose sole purpose
is to help fund the state’s schools
through the Common School Fund.
How this became so
complicated is one of those
Oregon things.
First the State Land Board
— Gov. Kate Brown, Treasurer
Tobias Read and Secretary of State
Dennis Richardson — decided to
sell the forest because it wasn’t
generating enough money.
Then, after winning bidders
were identified and negotiating the
purchase contract, the Land Board
backed out of the $220.8 million
deal, because, well, that’s where it
gets complicated.
They backed out because
they wanted the forest to stay in
state hands, primarily to appease
environmental interests, which
apparently believed preserving an
82,500-acre forest — representing
less than half of 1 percent of the
forestland in the state — is more
important than helping the state’s
571,000 public school students.
It should be noted that the
state Legislature is continually
poor-mouthing public schools, so
N. Bend
s
Coo
Coos Bay
N
Rive
r
101
Capital Press graphic
money from the Common School
Fund and the Elliott State Forest is
sorely needed.
The land board has come up
with a unique plan for the state
to sell $100 million in tax-free
bonds to buy the forest — from
itself. Then the board would
give the forest to Oregon State
University, whose budget the
Legislature is also threatening
to cut. Somehow, OSU would be
expected to find the remainder of
the purchase price.
If you’re not following this,
you’re not alone. This sort of
thing happens too often in Oregon,
where spending money with no
idea of where the project is headed
is an art form. We remember the
hundreds of millions of dollars
spent to study a bridge across the
Columbia River that wasn’t built
and for an Obamacare website that
didn’t work.
Considering the Elliott Forest
debacle, it appears they are all part
of an ongoing trend.
The state’s job in managing the
Elliott Forest is to find a way to
fund state schools. Period. If that
can’t be done for environmental
or other reasons, the board needs
to find income-generating timber
land to come up with that money,
not selling bonds to assuage
environmental sensitivities.
Secretary of State Richardson
appears to be the only person
on the board with the glimmer
of a clue of how to do that. He
suggested swapping the forest
to the federal government for
commercial timberland that can be
logged to generate money for the
schools and create jobs for loggers
and mill workers.
But that suggestion apparently
exhibits way too much common
sense.
In the meantime, the land board
seems destined to find yet another
way to come up with a losing
proposition — and leave the state’s
taxpayers with the bill.
Eric Mortenson’s article,
“For sale: When Oregon
farm and ranch land chang-
es hands,” asks two import-
ant questions: Who are our
future agricultural landown-
ers, and what will they do
with the land?
It has never been more
urgent to answer these ques-
tions, since land is already
rapidly changing hands.
According to new re-
search, Oregon’s farmers
and ranchers have never
been older — 59.6 years on
average — resulting in 64
percent of agricultural land
changing hands during the
next 20 years.
Beginning farmers and
ranchers face increasing
diffi culty fi lling their prede-
cessors’ shoes. Land prices
are escalating, due to in-
creased competition from
lifestyle owners who enjoy
the view but not the work,
investment entities and de-
velopment speculators. And
regulatory compliance costs
further shrink our profi t mar-
gins. Oregon’s expensive
estate tax also jeopardizes
livelihoods by forcing some
families to sell off parcels of
land.
To address these issues,
a group of diverse organiza-
tions spent a year research-
ing and developing the Or-
egon Agricultural Heritage
Program, House Bill 3249.
This legislation offers vol-
untary, fl exible tools to help
farmers and ranchers pass
their land to the next gen-
eration and prevent future
regulation.
HB 3249 would autho-
rize an impact study of Or-
egon’s estate tax on agri-
cultural businesses, support
succession planning work-
shops and fund conservation
management plans. These
plans are a proactive way
for landowners to prevent
environmental emergencies
and avoid subsequent regu-
latory fallout, like the listing
of a species as endangered or
threatened.
Funding for permanent
working lands easements
and temporary covenants
would also increase. Land-
owners would still own and
farm their land but receive
compensation for voluntari-
ly agreeing to forgo certain
development rights to pro-
tect the land from being sub-
divided. These tools aren’t
for everyone, but the funds
and protection they provide
are a lifesaver for some.
Providing $190,000 for
the fi rst two years creates
lasting benefi ts for the state’s
economy, rural communi-
ties, and natural resources.
We urge the Oregon leg-
islature to support this bill.
Oregon’s farmers, ranchers
and agricultural lands can-
not wait another legislative
session.
John O’Keeffe
President Oregon
Cattlemen’s Association
Adel, Ore.
Douglas Krahmer
President Berries
Northwest LLC
St. Paul, Ore.
Comparing
potatoes and milk
The newspaper reports
about the economic impact
of McCain Foods processing
expansion.
True — processor man-
agement and employees will
prosper, but what about the
potato farmer?
Will the potato farmer re-
ceive a price for the potatoes
greater than his cost to make
them?
Hopefully, the potato
farmer will heed the warning
of Mark Klompien, CEO and
president of United Potato
Growers of America, that
“oversupplying the market
kills price.” Mr. Klompien
has stated, “The value of cor-
rectly supplying the market
cannot be overstated.”
Product supply deter-
mines the product price and
farmer profi t or loss.
Hopefully, potato farmers
are smarter than dairy farm-
ers who send a maximum
milk supply to the market
and receive an unprofi table
price for their milk.
All farmers should send
the correct product supply
to the market — a supply
matching profi table demand
such that the resulting prod-
uct price is consistently pos-
itive for the farmer.
Dairy farmers have failed
to learn this economic lesson,
hopefully potato farmers will
do better.
Bob Krucker
Idaho dairy farmer
Jerome, Idaho
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 sub-
mission. 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.