6
CapitalPress.com
Editorials are written by or
approved by members of the
Capital Press Editorial Board.
September 8, 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
The art of the trade deal: Farmers, Trump and NAFTA
W
e are all about to be
schooled in the art of
the trade deal, and it
promises to be a white-knuckle
experience.
Farmers in the United States
have realized a lot of benefi ts
from the North American Free
Trade Agreement, the 1994 pact
between the U.S., Canada and
Mexico.
It’s also true that U.S. farmers
who have benefi ted from the
deal would also like it to be a bit
better.
Wheat growers, for example,
say the pact has opened up the
Mexican market, increasing
exports by 400 percent.
At the same time, they have
a beef with Canada. Canadian
wheat sold at an elevator in the
U.S. is rated the same as if it
were produced here. But U.S.
wheat delivered to an elevator
in Canada is rated as feed wheat
and priced accordingly.
There’s no incentive for U.S.
farmers to take wheat to Canada,
but Canadian farmers are on an
equal footing with U.S. producers
when they sell here.
Dairymen take issue with
Canada, too. U.S. and Mexican
dairy groups have a common
interest in pressing for better
treatment when products go
north.
Everyone wants to keep what
works, and fi x what doesn’t. But
anytime you renegotiate, you run
the risk of the other country’s fi x
causing trouble. That’s part of
normal negotiations.
These are hardly normal
negotiations.
President Trump called for
talks to renegotiate NAFTA,
which he sharply criticized
throughout his campaign.
Last week Trump suggested
that it might be necessary
to withdraw from NAFTA
altogether.
“Personally, I don’t think we
can make a deal because we have
been so badly taken advantage
of,” Trump said during a rally in
Arizona. “I think we’ll end up
probably terminating NAFTA at
some point.”
That put farm leaders, who had
supported renegotiating the pact,
on edge.
“If the president were to
withdraw from NAFTA, I
think that would cause a lot of
problems in farm country,” Ben
Conner, director of policy for
U.S. Wheat Associates, said.
“The president has a lot more
negotiating experience than I
do, but if they’re trying to make
counterparts in Canada and
Mexico concerned, it also has us
alarmed.”
Pick up the president’s book,
“The Art of the Deal.”
Written in 1987, the book
outlines Trump’s 11-step
formula for negotiations. Step
No. 5 is “use your leverage”
Readers’ views
Wolf problem
N. Cascades
recalls past
elk plan doesn’t
coyote battles
follow state law
O UR V IEW
Courtesy of Jeannette Voss
Albert and Eugenia Voss in the 1940s. Their Oregon farm was founded in 1853.
Sustainability more than a word
“S
ustainable” is in the eye
of the beholder. These
days it appears almost
everywhere, letting consumers
know that, well, the producers are
sustainable.
But what does that really mean?
Is it one of those squishy words like
“natural,” or does it have a tangible
meaning?
One defi nition of sustainability
we like is from the Sustainable
Agriculture Research and
Education Program at the
University of California-Davis.
“The goal of sustainable
agriculture is to meet society’s
food and textile needs in the
present without compromising
the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs,” according
to the program. “Practitioners of
sustainable agriculture seek to
integrate three main objectives into
their work: a healthy environment,
economic profi tability, and social
and economic equity.”
That makes sense. If a farmer
or rancher messes up the land,
loses money and treats workers
unfairly, he or she won’t last long
in business.
Conversely, if a farmer or
rancher is a good steward of the
land, makes money and treats
workers fairly, he or she will be in
business a long time.
Over the years, we’ve found the
vast majority farms and ranches to
be sustainable by any measure. In
the West, farm and ranch longevity
is often measured not just in years
or decades, but in generations. It
is common to talk to farmers and
ranchers who are the third, fourth
or fi fth generations on their family
operations. We’ve lost track of how
many individual farmers we’ve met
who can measure their experience
in decades. Having a half-century
of farming experience is not all that
unusual.
By our lights, they don’t need
anyone to tell them they are
sustainable. All they have to do is
look at the family photographs to
see how many generations have
successfully operated on the same
farm or ranch.
A couple of items we published
during the past several weeks
stand out in any discussion of
sustainability.
The fi rst was about a 164-year-
old farm in Oregon’s Willamette
Valley. Joseph and Elizabeth Voss
arrived in the Oregon territory from
Wisconsin, covering the 2,000
miles by wagon train. They started
their farm in 1853, six years before
Oregon became a state. Since then,
Voss Farm has raised a variety
of crops, including cattle, sheep,
grains, berries, fruits and Christmas
trees.
The Vosses’ descendants,
Jeannette Voss and Julie Edy, still
operate the farm, growing cereal
grains. It was honored this year as
a Sesquicentennial Farm by the
— walk away if you can’t get
what you want.
“The worst thing you can
possibly do in a deal is seem
desperate to make it,” Trump
wrote. “That makes the other
guy smell blood, and then you’re
dead.”
Is Trump threatening to leave
NAFTA to gain leverage, or will
he walk away in the hope of
make a better, bigger deal some
other day?
We don’t know if Trump has
Canada’s and Mexico’s attention,
but he’s rattled the farmers and
ranchers who depend on NAFTA
and other trade deals for their
livelihoods.
There’s ample reason to be
wary. Trade negotiations in the
age of Trump are not for the faint
of heart.
Standby for the next White
House tweet.
Oregon Century Farm and Ranch
Program, a partnership of the
Oregon Farm Bureau Foundation
for Education, the State Historic
Preservation Offi ce and the Oregon
State University Archives.
It is one of 39 sesquicentennial
farms and 1,200 centennial farms
recognized in Oregon.
Another item we noted was
about a wheat farm in Eastern
Washington. Marci and Lonnie
Green operate Green View Farm
Inc. near Fairfi eld, Wash. Marci
is also vice president of the
Washington Association of Wheat
Growers. The caption on a photo
about a media tour of the farm
noted that their son, Jordan Green,
is the seventh generation of farmers
in the family. He and his brother,
Derek, who’s still in college, are
carrying on the family tradition on
the 5,500-acre farm, which was
homesteaded in 1878 by Rufus and
Cordelia Kegley.
Yes, that’s seven generations,
and in all likelihood, there will be
more to come.
“We work hard to be
environmentally sustainable and
economically sustainable, too,”
Marci Green said. “That’s what we
strive for, is to have the opportunity
for them to continue in farming.”
As the Vosses and the Greens
— and more than 100,000
other Western farm families —
demonstrate, sustainability is a
way of life.
The cattle ranchers
of the Western states are
taking a beating from the
wolves at the hands of the
animal rights advocates,
environmentalists and Fish
and Game.
This battle with the
wolves is reminiscent of
the battle of the sheep
ranchers in the western
U.S. in the late 1960s and
the 1970s with the coyotes.
The federal trapping pro-
gram was cut back as well
as increasing the regula-
tions limiting or outright
stopping the use of certain
traps and other devices to
kill the coyotes attacking
the sheep.
The leaders of the na-
tional and some state wool
growers associations met
with President Nixon and
others and were given as-
surances that there would
be a reversal of those ac-
tions, but the president re-
neged on his promises.
The sheep ranchers, in
their frustration, decided
to take a drastic step to
show those demanding and
making the rules and the
public the devastation that
coyotes wrought on sheep.
The sheep ranchers start-
ed documenting the kills
— date and location —
and putting the carcasses
in cold storage. From the
Western states to Wash-
ington D.C. the carcasses
were shipped and then un-
loaded at the White House.
Those who think com-
pensation solves the prob-
lem are so wrong and
short-sighted. The com-
pensation for the killed
livestock is a pittance
compared to the loss, not
just for the day, but in the
long term and on many
levels.
Unfortunately, in to-
day’s world the farmers
and ranchers are dealing
with those who have their
own agenda, lack common
sense and are far removed
from the real world.
Several years ago, a
wise Navajo sheep rancher
told a group of his fellow
sheep ranchers that when
the last man dies, a coy-
ote will be picking at his
bones. That could apply to
the wolves.
Vernette Marsh
Davis, Calif.
What’s missing in the
Draft North Cascades Elk
Herd Plan (Capital Press
Sept. 1)? Obeying the law?
The draft just lists prob-
lems absent any workable
solutions. Not one word in
draft on how the Depart-
ment of Fish and Wildlife
(DFW) plans to obey RCW
77.04.012, which mandates
DFW elk shall not infringe
on the right of a private
property owner to control
the owner’s private prop-
erty.
Not one word how
DFW plans to prevent po-
tential loss to the beef and
dairy industry from spread
of elk hoof rot now con-
fi rmed in the county.
Not one word on safe-
ty and welfare concerns
of their own mismanaged
elk, some infl icted and
suffering with deadly hoof
rot disease. Again no solu-
tions. After 15 years of elk
suffering from hoof rot still
no answers in southwest
Washington.
Not one workable solu-
tion on how DFW intends
to cut 90 elk/vehicle colli-
sions per year by 50 per-
cent in 5 years.
Not one word how DFW
plans to fully compensate
landowners for damages
caused by elk intrusions
on the valley agriculture or
highway elk/vehicle col-
lisions from Sedro Wool-
ley to Concrete and Sedro
Woolley to Acme.
DFW’s present com-
pensation method pays a
very small percent of ac-
tual damages. Efforts to
achieve full compensation
are impossible because of
meaningless bureaucratic
red tape.
For 7 years I have been
unable to raise beef cattle
on 40 acres of my farm,
resulting in a large net loss
of farm income due to elk
continuously
damaging
fences. DFW refuses to
compensate for these dam-
ages. We are liable to keep
our beef cattle off the high-
way and neighbors’ prop-
erties. Shouldn’t DFW be
held to the same standard?
Citizens have to obey the
law. Shouldn’t DFW obey
the law, RCW77.04.012?
State law mandates it.
Randy Good
Sedro Woolley, Wash.
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.