6
CapitalPress.com
Editorials are written by or
approved by members of the
Capital Press Editorial Board.
June 30, 2017
All other commentary pieces are
the opinions of the authors but
not necessarily this newspaper.
Opinion
Editorial Board
Editor & Publisher
Managing Editor
Joe Beach
Carl Sampson
opinions@capitalpress.com Online: www.capitalpress.com/opinion
O UR V IEW
Federal law makes hemp a risky crop
O
ver the last several weeks we’ve
been following the progress of
Washington state’s nascent hemp
industry. The state recently licensed its
fi rst growers, and a crop has been planted.
Hemp and marijuana, both cannabis
plants with decidedly different properties
and followings, are legally joined at the
hip. States that have moved to legitimize
pot have also moved to allow commercial
hemp production.
We’ve never been bullish on hemp.
It’s not that we don’t appreciate its
potential. After all, you can go into most
any store and see something made out of
hemp, hemp oil or hemp seed. Consumers
are enthusiastic, and the crop has gotten
ample positive press.
And farmers in the Northwest who are
planting hemp are fi nding a ready market.
We have no moral objection to hemp.
Hemp is to marijuana what
a poppyseed muffi n is to
heroin. Hemp contains
very low amounts of
THC, the chemical
that produces the
high in marijuana.
While it is possible
to boost the THC
in hemp, we’ve read
nothing that suggests this
is a real problem.
That it remains illegal under
federal law is our only problem with
hemp. It’s a pretty big problem.
Despite state laws that “legalize”
marijuana and hemp, cannabis of all
stripes remains illegal under the federal
controlled substances act. That means
there are problems with depositing the
profi ts from hemp into federally regulated
banks. There are no federal
production loans for
hemp. Using water
from federal projects
to grow it could also
be problematic.
As long as
states regulate
hemp, it appears the
Department of Justice
will turn a blind eye to
its cultivation. It’s covered
under the “Cole memo,” the policy
adopted by the Obama administration
in 2013 to suspend most cannabis
enforcement if states that legalize the
stuff agree to strict regulatory measures.
But this legal cover is provisional at
best. The Cole memo lacks any force of
law, and can be set aside in favor of the
statute at any time.
O UR V IEW
The current administration has not
made a defi nitive pronouncement, but
there were indications just last week that a
change is possible concerning marijuana.
Given the mercurial nature of all
things Trump, we wouldn’t put a bet on
a crop that is only viable as long as the
administration decides not to enforce the
law.
There are efforts being pressed by
members of the congressional delegations
of states that have legalized recreational
and medical marijuana to change the
law and decriminalize cannabis. We are
having trouble embracing legal marijuana.
But we don’t see any reason why hemp
should be classifi ed as a controlled
substance.
Until there’s a change in federal law,
hemp remains a risky bet. The law should
be changed.
R EADER ’ S V IEW
GE developers should be held accountable
DON’T REPEAT
PAST MISTAKES
ON WOLVES
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
I am a farmer in Malheur
County, Ore., where I grow
seed crops (including non-
GE alfalfa), vegetables, and
Roundup Ready fi eld corn.
I am not opposed to genet-
ically engineered crops, but
as a farmer of some non-GE
varieties and after my experi-
ence with GE contamination
in my alfalfa seed production
and with the GE creeping bent-
grass escape, I am a supporter
of making the right people ac-
countable if crops are damaged.
That is why I support HB 2739.
As the chairman of the Mal-
heur County Weed Board, I’ve
had a front row seat to the dam-
age caused by Roundup Ready
GE bentgrass, which spreads
easily on the wind and through
water, infesting irrigation ditch-
es and cross-pollinating with
wild relatives.
Because USDA let Scotts
and Monsanto off the hook for
cleaning up their mess in 2015,
the burden is now on farmers
and landowners to deal with
this infestation. And that’s not
cheap: Before 2015, Scotts was
spending $250-350k a year to
fi nd and treat GE bentgrass.
I’m concerned for my crops,
as the value would plummet
if I am contaminated with GE
traits. If my crop, or say a grass
seed crop in the Grass Seed
Capital of the World, is dam-
aged, isn’t it fair that the com-
pany who made that GE trait
pay compensation?
The opponents of HB 2739
say the sky will fall if HB 2739
is passed, with outlandish pre-
dictions like the end to all sales
of GE seeds in Oregon or all in-
novation of new varieties. That
is ridiculous — there is no way
this bill would stop the sales or
production of Roundup Ready
crop varieties, they are just too
lucrative for the companies
making and selling them.
Why would groups like the
Oregon Farm Bureau, Orego-
nians for Food and Shelter, and
even OSU say such things? The
answer is clear when you look
at who fi nances these organiza-
tions: They all get funding from
Monsanto and/or other Big Ag
chemical companies. So that is
who they represent, not farmers
like me.
Jerry Erstrom
Vale, Ore.
Members of the Shasta Wolfpack congregate in Northern California.
ere we go again. Since 1995 we
at the Capital Press have been
following the reintroduction of gray
wolves in the West, starting with
wildlife managers depositing 66
wolves from Canada in Yellowstone
National Park and Idaho.
From the start, the wolves have thrived.
Wildlife management offi cials were surprised
at how quickly a few dozen wolves multiplied
into hundreds. Not only that, they spread in all
directions, showing up in Oregon, Washington
state, Nevada, Montana, Wyoming and Utah.
Most recently, wolves have taken up residence
in California. This was to be expected. Anyone
who has witnessed their proliferation across the
region knew it was just a matter of time before the
predators found a home in sunny California.
Wildlife managers now have decades of
experience managing the apex predators, and
dealing with the problems they create for ranchers.
They know wolves that become accustomed to
killing cattle or sheep need to be eliminated from
the wolfpack as soon as possible. They know that
some wolfpacks will leave livestock alone —
provided plenty of other food is available — but
others will be a problem.
Witness the Profanity Peak wolfpack in
Washington state. Wildlife managers killed seven
members of the pack last year only to fi nd that a
former member may again be attacking calves this
year as part of a new wolfpack.
Managers in Oregon and Washington have
struggled to come up with a plan to keep wolves
under control. Washington even spent about
$800,000 on a mediator to get various stakeholders
— ranchers and environmentalists — together to
H
talk about the problems wolves have created.
All of which should have been instructive for
the folks at the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife. They took part in a recent a workshop for
Northern California ranchers who face the prospect
of losing livestock to their hungry new neighbors.
An unfortunate exchange occurred at that
meeting, when CDFW wildlife program manager
Karen Kovacs told ranchers they have to trust the
department.
“Well, you don’t trust us,” was the response
from some ranchers.
The department’s managers will soon fi nd out
that trust has to be earned. To withhold information
from ranchers — whose livelihoods are at stake —
makes no sense and only creates more problems.
CDFW sees itself as being in the middle of the
wolf issue. Maybe. A more apt description is that
ranchers are in the middle, trying to keep wolves
from attacking their livestock.
Wildlife managers in Oregon and Idaho have
learned to work with ranchers. Washington
managers were a little slow on the uptake, but
seem to be doing better at that.
California managers would do well to avoid
the mistakes their colleagues made in those other
states. They need to pick up the phone and ask
them what they have learned the hard way.
They will fi nd out that wolves are robust, smart
and need no help from them. Wolves such as OR-7
trotted more than 600 miles from northeastern
Oregon into Northern California and back into
Oregon and found a mate, and he did it on his own.
There’s nothing a wildlife manager can do for
wolves.
Ranchers and their livestock, on the other hand,
need all of the protection they can get.
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@capital-
press.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.
Cooperation key to prosperity at all levels
As an organic grower, re-
ports of Azure Farms’ weed
problems impacting their
neighbors are a bit embar-
rassing. It need not have hap-
pened, as there are many tools
available to organic growers to
control weeds. Most of the or-
ganic farms I visit are as clean
as their neighbors’ chemically
treated fi elds.
In a culture that glorifi es the
individual, this incident high-
lights the importance of consid-
ering the community’s needs
as much as one’s own wishes.
Land ownership does not mean
that one can do whatever one
pleases with the property. An
employee once criticized me
for burning my garbage, noting
that I was simply passing it on
to my neighbors. Similarly, be-
fore fi eld burning was stopped,
I sometimes lost caulifl ower
crops to ash falling from the
sky and leaving black smudg-
es on the white heads. Now we
fi nd that our carbon emissions
into the atmospheric commons
are causing rising sea levels
that will push millions of farm-
ers in Bangladesh, Vietnam
and other coastal communities
off their land, resulting in lost
livelihoods and a reduced food
supply.
Human prosperity has long
been dependent on our ability
to cooperate, whether it is in
the form of neighbors helping
to bring in the harvest or en-
gineers working together to
make a better combine. When
we allow our waste, be it weed
seeds, chemicals, or carbon
dioxide, to move beyond the
borders of our property, that
cooperation and prosperity are
placed at risk.
Jeff Falen
Lebanon, Ore.
Weeds, pesticides and fi nger-wagging
Capital Press did a fair
amount of fi nger-wagging
at Azure Farms, the organic
farm accused of spreading
weed seeds (Capital Press,
5/26/17, “Organic weed battle
could have been avoided”).
But what about the pesticides
that the conventional farmers
are spreading? According to
Andre Leu in his book “The
Myths of Safe Pesticides,”
there is no such thing as a safe
pesticide.
Where is the “Capital
Press” fi nger-wagging about
the pesticides of conven-
tional farmers harming the
health and contaminating the
drinking water of the citi-
zens? These chemical farm-
ers spread their agricultural
poisons on hundreds of thou-
sands of acres via airplanes
and ground sprayers. Contrary
to chemical company PR,
these pesticides leave residues
on food crops and in drinking
water and do not break down
into harmless substances.
Currently more than 700
cancer suits have been fi led
nationwide against the pesti-
cide producer Monsanto. Rob-
ert F. Kennedy Jr, co-counsel
for the plaintiffs in the suits,
expects that number to rise to
3,000 soon. See “The Organ-
ic and Non-GMO Report,”
4/2017, page 22. Pesticides
from chemical farmers would
seem to be a lot more danger-
ous than an organic farm’s
weed seed spreading.
Patricia Michl
Lake Tapps, Wash.