6
CapitalPress.com
Editorials are written by or
approved by members of the
Capital Press Editorial Board.
November 3, 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
Speak clearly, please
T
here are two ways to talk.
One, which we shall call
“cowboy talk,” involves
speaking clearly. We suppose it’s
called cowboy talk because most
folks, whether they’re repairing a
fence or doing anything else, don’t
have a lot of time for extra chatter.
They say what needs to be said and
shut up.
Another way to talk is what the
late comedian George Carlin described
as “when people try to sound smart.”
“People add extra words when they
want things to sound more important
than they really are,” Carlin said in a
routine some years ago. He mentioned
television weather forecasters, who talk
about “rain events” when they really
mean “rain,” and news anchors who
talk about “emergency situations” when
they mean “emergencies.”
What brings this to mind was
some extra-smart communications
we recently received from a USDA
spokesman, who tried to explain
why the agency chronically missed
its deadlines for reports on the dairy
checkoff.
This communication would cause
Carlin — or almost anyone who speaks
English — to do back flips.
As reported by Capital Press
reporter Carol Ryan Dumas, the USDA
spokesman said the delayed release of
the annual reports represents a multi-
year effort by USDA and independent
evaluators “to develop a more reflective
illustration of the programs’ changing
strategic direction from traditional dairy
and milk promotion activities.”
“Modifications to the econometric
modeling, novel simulations developed
by the independent evaluation team,
and securing the necessary data for
these impact analyses posed significant
challenges,” the spokesman emailed.
“Those challenges further set in motion
a series of year-over-year delays but
were essential to ensure adequate
economic evaluation of the Dairy and
Fluid Milk Promotion Programs.”
Uh-huh.
We will translate: “We changed
the way we analyzed the checkoff and
things got out of hand, causing the
reports to be delayed.”
That the reports were late is one
thing, but to wrap techno-babble
around the explanation is another. Our
suspicion is the speaker — or, more
likely, the speaker’s boss — wanted to
paper over the problem with a high-
falutin explanation.
The problem is the checkoff collects
about $400 million a year from dairy
farmers and importers. They have a
right to know where every penny of that
goes and how it benefits the industry.
Clear communication is important.
Speaking and writing clearly is
something everyone needs to do, even
the USDA.
It leads to accountability, and to
trust.
O ur V iew
Courtesy of Greg Kreller
Meridian, Idaho, dairyman Clint Jackson with one of his Jersey cows, Josie, who helped him deliver pizzas in the Eagle area Oct. 6. United
Dairymen of Idaho and Dairy West used the event as a way to connect with consumers by bringing the farm to them.
Dairies deliver better
understanding to public
T
he concept of “telling
agriculture’s story” is easy to
say but hard to do.
Two recent examples from the
dairy industry demonstrate that it
can be done, and with a style —
advertising experts call it “sizzle”
— that promises to leave a lasting
impression.
Our favorite example involved
the decidedly non-sizzle-producing
act of delivering pizzas. The folks
at the Dairy Farmers of Idaho and
Dairy West teamed up with Smoky
Mountain Pizza to deliver their
pizzas to customers in Eagle, Idaho, a
suburb of Boise.
Here’s where the sizzle comes
in: They also brought along a dairy
farmer, Clint Jackson, and one of his
cows, Josie.
Anyone who has ever been around
Jersey cows knows how irresistible
they are. When Josie and Jackson
showed up at the door delivering
pizzas they made a huge hit, not
only with the customers but with the
entire neighborhood, many of whom
received free pizzas.
Suddenly, dairy became a
topic of conversation around the
neighborhood and at work.
When you can get people to talk
about dairy — especially if it’s good
— you’ve won the game.
Add that to another effort in
Washington state, in which dairy
farmers invite members of the public
to ask them questions during a live
Facebook video chat.
The Dairy Farmers of Washington
are sponsoring a series of four such
chats, during which farmers do what
they do best: explain in plain talk
what they do and why.
The Sept. 19 conversation was
with Jason VanderKooy of Skagit
County, the Oct. 12 conversation was
with Jason Sheehan of J&K Dairy in
Sunnyside. Other episodes featured
Bill Wavrin of Sunny Dene Ranch
near Mabton, Wash., and Rich Appel
of Ferndale, Wash.
The questions ranged from
water use to how many times a day
cows are milked to why calves are
separated from their mothers. Seattle
food writer Ashley Rodriguez was the
host and read questions that came in
from viewers.
An interesting thing happened,
too. Many of the questioners
and commenters were not from
Washington. They were from Los
Angeles, Florida, Canada and as far
away as the United Kingdom. They
appeared to be part of an effort to
push an animal rights agenda, but
their leading questions were met with
logical and conciliatory answers.
It’s probably not what the animal
rights folks wanted, but it was
interesting to see actual farmers take
on more than powder puff questions.
They did well, and showed
thoughtfulness in their answers that
would lead a fair-minded person to
conclude they know their science and
the logic behind how dairy farmers
operate.
It might not have been as much fun
as handing out pizzas, but it was an
equally effective way of bringing the
farm to the public.
Readers’ views
U of I range
students
misguided?
The “positive” Capital
Press article could not after 4
years of study and $2 million
draw any solid conclusions,
but could produce a nice head-
line and photograph. This is
the education being provided
University of Idaho grad stu-
dents. Capital Press article is
headlined, “Preliminary data
show cattle, sage grouse can
coexist.”
Karen
Launchbaugh’s
group (UI’s Rangeland Cen-
ter), working with the Idaho
Cattlemen’s Association and
$500,000 a year can make sure
the right headline is released
even if after 4 years and $2 mil-
lion “it’s too early to draw sol-
id conclusions from the study.”
With 6 more years and $3
million more, will their results
and education be enhanced?
When the UI’s Rangeland
Center “studied” the Asotin
Wildlife Area and Wild Steel-
head Refuge “pilot grazing”
project in Washington the
WDFW was taken to court.
After 4 years “study” and
obtaining about $2 million
the judge saw only negative
effects on fish and wildlife
habitat ... and closed it down.
These students may be
learning how to take home
money rather than determining
environmental interactions. Is
this the lesson Idaho residents
want their university to teach:
faculty and students “at the
trough”?
Don Johnson
Retired biology professor
and fisheries scientist
American Falls, Idaho
Don’t jump to conclusions
about sage grouse-cattle study
By GEORGE WUERTHNER
For the Capital Press
T
he headline in a recent
Capital Press article
proclaims that “Pre-
liminary data shows cattle,
sage grouse can coexist.”
The article then goes on
to quote various researchers
who are at the beginning of
a 10-year study. According
to the article, grazing allot-
ments were grazed accord-
ing to traditional patterns
for two years, then the third
year, grazing on at least one
study plot was terminated.
Other pastures alternated
between spring grazing and
resting in even and odd
years or were grazed during
both the spring and fall be-
fore resting.
University of Idaho pro-
fessor Courtney Conway,
one of the researchers, then
suggested that “Compared
to pastures that were rested
that spring, we aren’t seeing
a difference in sage grouse
nesting success in (grazed
pastures).
However, Conway does
suggest tall grasses improve
chick survival.
Karen
Launchbaugh,
director of UI’s Rangeland
Center, admits it’s too early
to draw solid conclusions
from the study, but says at
least she is pleased there
have been no “big red flags”
suggesting cattle and sage
grouse can’t coexist.
The problem with the
entire happy talk is that the
study is only in the early
stages of its research. Ba-
sically, they have one year
without grazing and other
management measures, and
to suggest after such a lim-
ited time period that “cattle,
sage grouse can co-exists” is
pushing the limits of credi-
bility. So many variables
can affect sage grouse from
year to year. It’s the long-
term trends that are import-
ant.
One could just as eas-
ily proclaim “study can’t
say whether cattle and sage
grouse co-exist” and it
would be just as accurate,
in fact, from a scientific per-
spective, more accurate.
However, that wouldn’t
Guest
comment
George
Wuerthner
get points with ranchers, the
Public Lands Council, Idaho
Cattlemen’s Association and
the other agencies funding
the project.
Furthermore, the ti-
tle misrepresents what is
known about livestock graz-
ing impacts on sage grouse.
Cattle impact sage grouse in
multiple ways throughout
their lifecycle. You can’t
just look at one factor and
proclaim cattle and sage
grouse can co-exist.
Grouse collide with fenc-
es and suffer high mortality
as a result. Grouse get West
Nile virus from mosquitoes
that breed in cattle water
troughs. Cattle compact
and degrade wetlands and
riparian areas that are crit-
ical feeding areas to young
grouse. Cattle remove hid-
ing cover for nesting hens,
and of course, expose both
chicks and adults to pred-
ators. Cattle, by trampling
biocrusts, facilitate the es-
tablishment of cheatgrass, a
highly flammable grass that
is burning away sage habi-
tat.
Even the hay fields so
common around the West
are a problem for grouse.
First, in most cases, native
vegetation was removed to
create grassy open pastures
and field, removing a sig-
nificant amount of grouse
habitat. Furthermore, the
hay fields fragment grouse
habitat. As poor fliers, they
are reluctant to cross open
fields without cover.
In short, happy talk that
cattle and sage grouse can
co-exist is deceptive at best,
and just another example of
how range departments seek
to promote private livestock
interests over the public’s
desire to see its wildlife
flourish.
George Wuerthner is
a former Bureau of Land
Management biologist, au-
thor of 38 books and helped
to write the original petition
for sage grouse listing. He
lives in Bend, Ore.
Affordable fuel
critical for agriculture
By MIKE LAPLANT
For the Capital Press
M
any farms are rap-
idly moving to-
ward green tech-
nologies and fuel efficiency.
Yet to make that transition,
we need access to affordable
diesel and gas to make those
green investments.
Yes, you heard that
right. We need access to
affordable fossil fuels to
ultimately become greener
farmers.
That’s because we still
need energy to grow our
crops, power our equip-
ment, and ship our prod-
ucts — that’s just a fact.
Energy accounts for nearly
30 percent of intermediate
production costs on Wash-
ington farms, and when
inputs rise, farms have less
to spend on new technolo-
gy. And it’s not just direct
fuel costs that affect our
available capital. Fertilizers
that are key to crops also
fluctuate with the cost of
oil. In fact, fuel costs can
be traced up and down the
supply chain so even little
increases can be magnified
across inputs.
In times of lower input
costs, farmers can invest in
creating sustainable energy
solutions that are also good
for their business. Many
Farm Bureau members are
cutting costs and drastically
reducing their energy bills
by investing in the latest
produce storage systems,
some of which are con-
trolled by computers.
These systems keep
Guest
comment
Mike LaPlant
their products fresh for
market and efficiently use
electricity, which lowers
their overall input costs and
emissions.
These are significant
capital investments. All in-
vestments are risky but that
risk can be mitigated when
market conditions are sta-
ble and input costs, princi-
pally fuel, are affordable.
The Washington State
Legislature and other
states are considering poli-
cies next year like cap and
trade and carbon taxes that,
while well-intended, will
ultimately lead to increased
fuel costs. As stewards of
the land, farmers agree that
we must protect our envi-
ronment so we can produce
good, healthy food. Yet pol-
icymakers must consider
the unintended consequenc-
es of such policies that in-
crease fuel costs for farm-
ers and prevent investment
in innovative technologies
that may ultimately bring
down emissions in the
long run.
To learn more and get in-
volved on these issues, I en-
courage all farmers to visit
www.affordablefuelwash-
ington.com to get engaged
and help keep fuel prices in
Washington affordable and
predictable.
Mike LaPlant is pres-
ident of the Washington
State Farm Bureau.