6
CapitalPress.com
November 10, 2017
Editorials are written by or
approved by members of the
Capital Press Editorial Board.
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
Growers depend on researchers to solve problems
W
allace Stanley Sayre, a
political scientist and
Columbia University
professor, in the 1950s quipped that
university politics are so intense
because the stakes are so low.
Faculty and administrators
involved in a kerfuffl e at
Washington State University’s
College of Agricultural, Human
and Natural Resource Sciences
might disagree.
At stake, at least some faculty
say, is academic freedom.
The WSU chapter of the
American Association of
University Professors says that
30 ag school faculty members
claim commodity commissions
exercise an outsize infl uence over
research. They fear failing to meet
objectives or getting crosswise
with commodity groups can lead
administrators to withhold tenure
or take other adverse career
actions.
Administrators deny they or
the faculty members are under
the thumb of commodity groups
funding research.
We’ve seen scant evidence
that commodity commissions are
overtly pressing administrators
to take action against specifi c
researchers. The researchers we
spoke with seemed more upset
with administrators.
Whether administrators,
on their own initiative, are
telegraphing any perceived
concerns is a different
matter. Some researchers say
administrators don’t want to lose
funding so they do the industry’s
Jim McFerson
bidding. Administrators say that’s
not the case.
Under no circumstances
should commodity groups paying
for research, or others lending
fi nancial support to a university,
have sway over tenure or other
personnel matters.
Neither should anyone expect
specifi c outcomes. A lot of good
ideas just don’t pan out.
Also clear, we think, is the
question of how much input those
funding research should have in
how research is conducted or what
the goal of that research should be.
In a perfect world, there would
be money for scientists to study
whatever they wanted, however
they wanted. But the world is a
long way from being perfect.
Growers put up money to solve
specifi c problems — to counter
pests, breed better performing
varieties, develop new production
techniques. Knowledge for the
O UR V IEW
Sage grouse study deserves support
N
ews of researchers studying
the impact cattle might
have on the greater sage
grouse has drawn sharp criticism
from some in the scientifi c
community, who wonder whether
the effort is worthwhile.
The sage grouse, a wild bird the
size of a chicken, has been at the
center of a decades-long debate
across the West. Two years ago,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
found the bird was “relatively
abundant and well-distributed
across the species’ 173 million-acre
range,” which includes 11 states
and two Canadian provinces.
As such, it would not need
protection under the federal
Endangered Species Act, as
ranchers and others worked
together to change how they grazed
livestock.
The agency credited an
“unprecedented conservation
partnership” among ranchers for
signifi cantly reducing threats to the
bird on 90 percent of its breeding
habitat.
This, of course, was welcome
news.
However, there is more to
learn about any impact livestock
may have on the birds and
how they both might be better
managed. That’s among the
goals of a study led by University
of Idaho professor Courtney
Conway, who also serves as
director of the U.S. Geological
Survey Idaho Cooperative Fish
and Wildlife Research Unit, which
is a partnership of UI, the U.S.
Department of the Interior and
the Idaho Department of Fish and
Game.
The researchers hope to learn
how cattle and sage grouse might
be able to co-exist. That’s what a
recent article in the Capital Press
says.
Four years into the 10-year
study, one of the researchers said
there appear to be no “big red fl ags”
regarding the compatibility of sage
grouse and cattle.
That and other aspects of the
article have evoked criticism of
the study. The critics’ premise is
apparently “we already know what
the outcome will be, so why do it?”
They also picked at the headline,
over which the researchers had zero
control.
We believe more research is
needed, on this and every other
scientifi c topic.
Through history, scientists have
declared as settled a wide variety
of “facts” that, upon further study,
turned out to be wrong.
In the 16th century, astronomer
Nicolaus Copernicus proposed that
the earth orbited the sun instead of
the earth residing at the center of
the universe.
He was correct, but it took
many years before his theory was
fully accepted.
As recently as the 1980s
scientists believed that one gene
controlled a single trait in a
human. Once the human genome
was mapped, every trait could
be controlled, according to this
theory.
But they were wrong. Now that
the genome has been mapped,
scientists have discovered that a
single trait is infl uenced by many
factors.
The lesson: In science, as in
life, everything is often much more
complicated than it might seem at
fi rst.
Who knows what the sage
grouse research project will find?
We anxiously await the results,
with the hope that they will spawn
even more questions and ideas for
better managing rangelands.
The more scientists
can learn about the
interaction of cattle
and the greater sage
grouse, the better
both can be managed.
Readers’ views
Renewable Fuel
Standard should
be retained
Oregon is known for its
green forests, clear water and
clean air and we must protect
these treasures for our use, and
for future generations. Despite
this, the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPA) recently
suggested changing the Re-
newable Fuel Standard (RFS)
to lower biofuel production
targets, harming the future
of biofuel innovation and the
United States’ growth in the
biofuel industry.
Currently, biofuels help our
environment by reducing car-
bon emissions by up to 43 per-
cent, and this number will only
increase through further inno-
vation. However, this requires
the government to encourage
growth in the biofuel industry
rather than squandering it.
The U.S. Energy Informa-
tion Administration (EIA) re-
ported that, by 2022, biofuels
will make up 93 percent of all
renewable energy used in road
travel. And, as oil gets dirtier
and dirtier, biofuels can be-
come cleaner. However, this
necessary innovation can only
occur if U.S. fuel producers
are encouraged to do so. One
of the main drivers of biofuel
growth is a strong RFS.
Oregonians, and all Ameri-
cans, rely on the ethanol indus-
try to support the agriculture
economy and reduce fossil
fuel usage. I urge our Oregon
elected offi cials and Adminis-
trator Pruitt to commit to rural
economy growth and a cleaner
America.
Kevin Gleim
Salem, Ore.
sake of knowledge is a worthy
ideal, but growers can really only
fund those projects that serve their
own interests.
In cooperation with the experts
who perform the research, we
think growers have the right to set
expectations.
“The bottom line is, scientists
can choose not to apply (or)
choose to apply for funding, and
if you’re funded to do a project,
those are the objectives,” Jim
McFerson, the director of WSU’s
Tree Fruit Research and Extension
Center in Wenatchee and a former
Tree Fruit Research Commission
manager, said. “If you’re not
making progress, funding doesn’t
happen by magic.”
The one who pays the fi ddler
calls the tune.
Monarch habitat restoration
benefi ts farmers, environment
By ROBERT GIBLIN
For the Capital Press
L
ooking like small,
fl ying black, orange
and yellow stained-
glass windows, monarch
butterfl ies are prized for
their beauty, and as a sym-
bol of biodiversity and the
need to protect ecosystems.
Because of a variety of
challenges, however, mon-
arch butterfl y populations
have declined. Collabora-
tion among farmers, home-
owners and other land-
owners will be crucial in
helping to restore popula-
tions of monarchs and other
pollinators.
There are many complex
reasons for monarch pop-
ulation declines, includ-
ing loss of breeding hab-
itat, weather and climate
change, predators, patho-
gens and parasites, and less
overwintering habitat in
Mexico.
Monarchs need places
to eat, live and reproduce
during their yearly jour-
ney from Mexico, to as far
north as Canada.
To survive the migra-
tion, they need two kinds of
nourishment — nectar and
milkweed. Monarchs con-
sume nectar from a variety
of fl owers, while milkweed
provides shelter for the but-
terfl ies’ eggs and nourish-
ment for their caterpillars.
Re-establishing milk-
weed is essential to re-
storing the population of
monarchs, but it has long
been considered a nuisance
for farmers and gardeners
alike.
Milkweed can be dev-
astating to crop yields and
may be toxic to some live-
stock if ingested. Gardeners
often treat the plant like an
invasive species.
For years, milkweed
was classifi ed as a noxious
weed in some areas and its
control was required by lo-
cal or county laws.
In response to a 2014
petition to list the monarch
under the Endangered Spe-
cies Act, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service has begun
the process of evaluating
monarch conservation mea-
sures, including evaluating
volunteer habitat conserva-
tion efforts in agriculture,
to assess the impact toward
ensuring long-term recov-
ery and resilient monarch
populations.
Farmers, ranchers and
other landowners already
are engaged in conserva-
tion initiatives focused on
water quality, erosion con-
trol, wildlife and pollinator
habitat.
These efforts demon-
strate that continuing in-
novation in agricultural
practices can reduce envi-
ronmental impacts, increase
crop productivity and be
compatible with monarch
conservation efforts.
Farmers need to main-
Guest
comment
Robert Giblin
tain good cropland, but
they are in a great position
to help restore monarch
habitat. The time to act is
now. Farmers and other
land managers should be-
gin establishing or expand-
ing monarch habitat in the
fall of 2017 and spring of
2018. Milkweed can be es-
tablished in many niches on
the agricultural landscape,
including
conservation
lands, grazing lands, rights-
of-way, fi eld margins and
yard and garden areas. In
some cases, solutions may
be as simple as adjusting
mowing or weed control
practices to avoid time pe-
riods when monarch eggs
and caterpillars are present.
Other land expanses,
such as road and utility cor-
ridors or rights-of-way, also
may be suitable for mon-
arch habitat.
Many states and orga-
nizations offer information
and volunteer registries
for farmers and other land-
owners to enroll pollinator
habitats and to share best
management practices that
will allow monarch habitat
to survive.
Along the monarch fl y-
way, state wildlife agencies
have been tasked to devel-
op management plans that
encourage
conservation
plans in ways that make
sense locally or regionally.
These state and local efforts
should include input from
farm organizations and
agribusinesses, which are
uniquely positioned to sup-
port management practices
that will result in sustain-
able monarch populations.
Federal
government
agencies, such as the Agri-
culture Department, FWS
and the National Resources
Conservation Service also
are cooperating to align
programs and rules to fos-
ter monarch habitat resto-
ration.
The Farm Service Agen-
cy has enrolled more than
124,000 acres in the Con-
servation Reserve Program
pollinator practice. FSA
and NRCS are providing
grants and incentives to
implement practices to en-
courage establishment of
pollinator habit.
Monarchs face many
challenges on their long
migratory journey.
Agriculture can play a
key role in helping these
important pollinators reach
their destination, but farm-
ers can’t do it alone. Nor
should they have to.
Robert Giblin is a free-
lance writer, speaker and
consultant on agriculture
and food issues and poli-
cies. This column appears
courtesy of the American
Farm Bureau Federation.