6
CapitalPress.com
November 17, 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
Farmers must take their message to the public
A
t least a couple of times
a year, one group or
another reaches out to the
Capital Press seeking advice on
how to get their message about
agriculture to consumers in urban
markets.
The conversation takes a
predictable course.
“There’s so much
misinformation on the internet.
People in the city don’t
understand farming (ranching,
GMOs, dairies, pesticides,
wolves, commodity prices, trade,
etc). How can we get the facts
and our perspective to city media
outlets?”
It’s an age-old question.
You can try to get an op-ed
piece printed in the Oregonian or
Capital Press File
Ag can’t change the minds of activists, but it can engage reasonable people who
can be swayed by the facts.
the Seattle Times and you might
make some headway. You could
go directly to the online sites
spreading misinformation and
challenge them.
But farmers and ranchers
really can’t compete with bomb
throwers on the comment sections
of social media posts or of stories
on news websites.
Those probably aren’t the
people agriculture needs to
reach anyway. Ag can’t change
the minds of activists, but it can
engage reasonable people who
can be swayed by the facts.
The best way for ag groups to
get their message to nonfarmers
is to go directly to those
consumers, either online or in
person. And because facts only
go so far, the best way to present
the message is to put a human
face on it.
There are any number of
examples of farmers and ranchers
using personal blogs, YouTube
and Facebook to refute common
misconceptions about agriculture.
An Oregon dairy farmer in
Tillamook County, for example,
does an excellent job on Facebook
teaching people about his industry.
A recent video post discussed
the feedstuffs and nutrition
supplements he feeds his herd.
We think ag groups should
work to get farmers and ranchers
in front of the urban civic and
church groups that are always
looking for a lunch or dinner
speaker. These are receptive
audiences whose perceptions can
be changed.
Closing the rural-urban
divide and challenging the
misinformation about agriculture
found on the internet requires a
constant effort. Retail politics win
campaigns.
Why I testifi ed:
H.R. 3144 ‘just
makes sense’
O UR V IEW
By BETH LOONEY
No protection needed for wolves
W
hat would you do?
Put yourself in the
boots of the Oregon
hunter who says he was attacked by
a wolf.
“I screamed, got it in my (scope)
crosshairs, saw fur and pulled the
trigger,” Brian Scott of Clackamas,
Ore., told our reporter, Eric
Mortenson.
Though his story has been doubted
by some and he has been criticized
by the trolls on social media, Scott
appears to have done the right thing.
With a wolf running toward him and
at least two others fl anking him, he
protected himself.
Some experts insist that wolves
are shy little things that avoid people,
but hunters often mask their scent
using pine boughs to avoid detection
by elk. Some hunters also use a cow
call or rub antlers on trees to attract
bull elk. The wolf probably thought
it was going to have elk for lunch.
Those or other factors might have
led the wolf to charge Scott on that
fateful day in Eastern Oregon.
We refuse to condemn a man
for protecting himself against a
charging predator. He broke no
laws. Though unusual, wolves have
killed people in the past, and no one
on any side of the debate wants to
see that happen.
By our lights, he did everything
right, including calling the
authorities and reporting the incident.
We’re a bit less sympathetic
toward whoever has been shooting
wolves in southern Oregon. Three
of the protected animals have been
killed in that part of the state, a
violation of state and federal law.
We did not write the law, nor do
we agree that wolves should be a
protected species. But to blatantly
violate the law only bolsters
wolf advocates’ arguments for
protecting the animals.
Wolves are thriving in Oregon,
Washington, Idaho, Montana and
other states — even California.
The idea that any resources or
protections are required to help
those populations of apex predators
spread borders on laughable.
We’ve said before in this space
that ranchers need protection from
wolves, not the other way around.
What is needed is for our
elected members of Congress to
get off their rear ends and lift the
protection for wolves in the West.
There are plenty of wolves in this
part of the country — more than
1,000 in Oregon, Washington and
Idaho alone. Wildlife managers
readily acknowledge that their
counts are low-ball estimates, since
wolves seem to be popping up
unannounced all over the region.
That includes the pack that
managers didn’t know about that
attacked the hunter in Eastern
Oregon.
It’s time to end the protections
for wolves as they continue to
multiply and spread across the
region without any help from
wildlife managers.
Ag can’t afford to lose out on trade
By HOPE PJESKY
For the Capital Press
A
s a farmer, it sad-
dens me the way an-
ti-trade rhetoric has
escalated in the media and
political climate over the last
few years. Overlooking the
benefi ts, people are too often
quick to write off free trade
agreements. They seem to
forget the basic economic
principle of comparative ad-
vantage, which allows peo-
ple to do what they are best
at and trade with others for
the goods and services they
lack. When this principle is
followed, everyone benefi ts
from access to the best and
most affordable products
and services.
International trade is
incredibly important to
hundreds of thousands of
American farm and ranch
families, including mine. Us-
ing knowledge and innova-
tion, American farmers and
ranchers have become very
effi cient at growing a diverse
and abundant supply of food,
fi ber and fuel. Our productiv-
ity provides American con-
sumers with more nutritious
Guest
comment
Hope Pjesky
food choices, at lower prices
than any other country in the
world. But some of the prod-
ucts we take for granted in
our grocery stores wouldn’t
be available without trade,
due to the limits of our local
climates and growing sea-
sons. For example, tropical
products such as coffee, co-
coa and bananas cannot be
produced in the continental
U.S.
American farmers and
ranchers are so effi cient, in
part, because we specialize
in growing crops and raising
livestock that are best suited
to our land and climate. This
effi ciency allows us to grow
an abundance of certain ag-
ricultural products to sell to
markets around the world.
And that’s vital to keeping
agriculture and the jobs it
supports on American soil
alive and well. With 95.6
percent of the world’s con-
sumers living outside the
U.S., family farmers like
me depend on international
trade to make our businesses
sustainable.
On our farm in Oklaho-
ma, we produce wheat and
beef for consumers in the
U.S. and abroad. Our climate
is challenging for growing
most crops but the crop best
suited to our region is hard
red winter wheat, the type
of wheat used in the bread
that Americans eat every
day. American family farm-
ers depend on international
markets to keep us in busi-
ness, however, as demand is
not high enough in the U.S.
alone. Each year between 50
and 60 percent of the hard
red winter wheat grown in
the U.S. is exported to many
countries around the world,
including Mexico, Japan,
the Philippines, China, Ni-
geria and South Korea.
In spite of our nation’s
love affair with red meat,
valuable beef would be
tossed out if our farm sold
only to domestic customers.
Access to markets in other
countries that use the cuts
of beef American consumers
don’t not only adds value —
between $250 and $300 for
each calf — but also reduc-
es food waste. For example,
there isn’t much demand
for beef short ribs, tongue
or internal organ meat in
the U.S., but in South Ko-
rea short ribs are in high
demand. In Mexico, tongue
tacos are a favorite, and con-
sumers in many countries
around the world welcome
internal organ meats on their
dinner plates. Without trade
our farm couldn’t make a
living just producing the
beef Americans enjoy.
Next time you hear that
trade is bad for American
businesses, take a moment
to consider the safe, afford-
able food you enjoy every
day, and imagine for a mo-
ment what your shopping
cart and dinner table might
look like if a lack of trade
opportunities forced Ameri-
can farms out of business.
Hope Pjesky, a mem-
ber of the American Farm
Bureau Federation’s GO
Team, blogs at hopepjesky.
wordpress.com. She is a
farmer/rancher in northern
Oklahoma, where her family
grows wheat and raises beef
cattle.
For the Capital Press
Guest
comment
A
Beth Looney
few weeks ago, on a
Thursday morning in our
nation’s capital, I took my
seat in front of a microphone to
face members of the U.S. House
of Representatives Committee on
Natural Resources’ Subcommit-
tee on Water, Power and Oceans.
I had traveled from Portland,
Ore., to Washington, D.C., to
make sure that the voices of my
distribution cooperative mem-
bers, and public power through-
out the Northwest, were heard on
a critical piece of federal legisla-
tion now before Congress.
The bill, H.R. 3144, places a
temporary time-out on litigation
brought by plaintiff groups with
an agenda. It has bipartisan sup-
port from Northwest Reps. Cathy
McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash.;
Jaime Herrera Beutler; R-Wash.;
Dan Newhouse, R-Wash.; Kurt
Schrader, D-Ore.; and Greg
Walden, R-Ore, notable in our
polarized political times.
With the proposal gaining
traction in Congress, anti-hydro-
power groups have been unfairly
criticizing the legislation for tak-
ing the issue of how to balance
hydropower and salmon protec-
tion “out of the judge’s hands.”
I don’t agree, and I urge you to
consider this important bill in a
more accurate light.
What it would do
Yes, the bill would hit the
pause button on litigation — but
only until the same court’s ear-
lier order, to conduct a compre-
hensive National Environmental
Policy Act review of all facets of
the federal hydrosystem, is com-
plete.
Moreover, the bill would
not “overturn” any directive yet
issued by U.S. District Judge
Michael Simon. It only tempo-
rarily removes the matter from
his courtroom, while federal
agencies collect data and gather
public input on the operations of
the federal hydrosystem and its
impacts on protected salmon —
information that the judge him-
self has asked for.
Meanwhile, current biolog-
ical measures vetted and sup-
ported by federal scientists in
two consecutive administrations
(the George W. Bush and Obama
administrations) would remain
in place to protect salmon in the
Columbia and Snake rivers.
I went to D.C. to tell Congress
that H.R. 3144 is a necessary in-
terim solution that just makes
sense — for salmon, for families
and businesses across the North-
west, and especially for PNGC’s
200,000 member homes, farms
and businesses, including many
in rural communities.
Rising costs
Currently, 13 Columbia Basin
salmon and steelhead species are
listed under the Endangered Spe-
cies Act. Driven by these listings,
Bonneville Power Administra-
tion utility ratepayers fund the
largest mitigation program for
endangered species in the nation.
Already, these fi sh and wild-
life costs make up about a third
of BPA’s total cost of power. In
fi scal year 2016, that came to
roughly $622 million. For just
one year. Those steep costs aren’t
passed on to U.S. taxpayers, I
reminded the subcommittee. In-
stead, they are paid by utility cus-
tomers, including my customers,
across the Northwest.
About 80 percent of PNGC’s
power supply comes from Bon-
neville. The rates we pay for BPA
power are rising steadily and un-
sustainably, tied in large part to
the constant litigation against the
hydrosystem.
Now, yet again, due to ongo-
ing lawsuits, Judge Simon is like-
ly to order increased spill over
the dams for the 2018 salmon
migration season. This spill ex-
periment could cost Bonneville
customers another 2 percent rate
increase, on top of a 5.4 percent
increase that took effect several
weeks ago and the 30 percent in-
crease marched in over the past
several years.
As I told members of Con-
gress in Washington, D.C.,
PNGC values the clean, car-
bon-free, fl exible hydropower
that Bonneville provides. But I
have a responsibility to supply
power to my members at an af-
fordable rate, whether that comes
from Bonneville or elsewhere.
A time-out
My point to the subcommit-
tee was this: If you care about
the fi nancial health and future
of Bonneville and the important
programs BPA supports, you
must consider the impact of this
rate trajectory on Northwest cus-
tomers who have other, cheaper
options for power. It’s time for a
temporary time-out.
In the meantime, there are
strong existing protections in
place for salmon. And, as soon
as the NEPA review is complete,
federal agencies will be posi-
tioned to adopt a new salmon
plan based on the public, trans-
parent NEPA process and the sci-
ence it yields.
That’s what this bill would al-
low and why I traveled across the
country to endorse it on behalf of
PNGC customers and Northwest
RiverPartners. I hope you’ll see
reasons to support it, too.
Beth Looney is president and
CEO of Portland-based PNGC
Power and a board member
of Northwest RiverPartners.
PNGC Power is a not-for-profi t,
member-owned electric gener-
ation and transmission coop-
erative owned by 15 Northwest
electric distribution cooperative
utilities with service territory in
seven Western states.