Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Capital press. (Salem, OR) 19??-current | View Entire Issue (Dec. 22, 2017)
12 CapitalPress.com December 22, 2017 Christmas trees are grown by about 3,400 U.S. farmers CHECKOFF from Page 1 The question is whether farmers will be supportive of continuing to pay for a promo- tional strategy that some may find confusing or unfamiliar. The answer will be provided next year, when Christmas tree farmers across the U.S. will vote whether to retain the pro- gram. Despite his apathy toward social media, Schaefer said he recognizes the program’s value because the Millennial generation — people born be- tween 1978 and 1998 — con- sumes information differently. “They don’t read newspa- pers or watch TV,” he said. Retailers have told Schae- fer the promotional campaign is effective, which is important if real Christmas trees are to remain a viable retail item, he said. “If they can’t sell the trees, it’s going to trickle down to the farmer,” Schaefer said. “They’ve got to get a return on their investment.” Christmas trees are grown by about 3,400 U.S. farmers on 178,000 acres, generating roughly $367 million in annual sales, according to USDA data from 2014, the most recent year available. Generally, it appears that farmers who are part of the Christmas tree industry sup- port the checkoff and are ex- cited to see their crop promot- ed, said Tim O’Connor, the board’s executive director. However, there is a small contingent of farmers who happen to grow Christmas trees but don’t see the crop as their main specialty and may not care about paying for pro- motions, he said. Whether these less-invest- ed growers will favor continu- ing the program — and how much they will influence the referendum — will remain a mystery until the votes are tallied, since the board doesn’t plan to devote money to con- duct polling, O’Connor said. Checkoff fees are tax-de- ductible as business expenses. In the board’s early days, some older farmers didn’t understand the social media emphasis of the promotional campaign, but they’ve since warmed to the concept, said Phil Hunter, president of the Pacific Northwest Christmas Tree Association and a grower near Port Orchard, Wash. “As an industry, I think we’d be foolish not to pass the referendum,” he said. A couple hundred grow- ers don’t use email, so the board must make a special ef- fort to keep them in the loop about promotions, said Betty Malone, a farmer near Philo- math, Ore., who spearheaded Mateusz Perkowski/Capital Press Farmer Pat Malone prepares to move a pallet of Christmas trees with his tractor at Sunrise Tree Farm near Philomath, Ore. Mateusz Perkowski/Capital Press Farmer Pat Malone loads Christmas trees onto a conveyor in preparation for shipping at Sunrise Tree Farm near Philomath, Ore., which he owns with his wife, Betty. can afford to pay for a national television advertising blitz, he said. “It’d be difficult for the checkoff to come up with that kind of money,” Rondeau said. Program support Mateusz Perkowski/Capital Press Workers load Christmas trees onto a pallet at Sunrise Tree Farm near Philomath, Ore. the effort to start a checkoff. The program will do more outreach through traditional mail, in case digital commu- nications aren’t reaching the decision-makers at a farm, she said. “Where I get my informa- tion is not where my kids get their information,” Malone said. Grower objections Regardless of the potential generational disconnect over social media, some growers object to the checkoff for phil- osophical reasons. Robert Brown, a Christmas tree grower in New York, said he’s comfortable with promot- ing his own business over so- cial media but doesn’t like the idea of a mandatory program. “To me, it’s just another form of government: Let’s tax the little people,” Brown said. “They mean well. I’m just not sure it’s something I want to be involved with, but I’m stuck with it.” His sentiment is echoed by Edward Steigerwaldt, a Wisconsin tree producer, who doesn’t see the purpose of spending on promotions when there’s a shortage of Christmas trees. Several years ago, growers cut back on planting trees after overproduction put prices in a slump and forced some out of the industry. The pendulum has now swung the other way, with tight supplies bringing up prices. Wholesale prices to growers are in the range of $17 per tree for Douglas firs, up from about $10 during the slump, while Noble firs are selling for about $30 per tree, up from about $18. It’s unlikely the industry will see another major surplus soon, particularly since farm- ers are getting older and leav- ing the business while younger people are reluctant to enter it, Steigerwaldt said. “There are so many people who don’t want to do this type of work,” he said. While Steigerwaldt be- lieves the checkoff was created at the behest of “big growers,” a major Christmas tree produc- er shares his lack of enthusi- asm. Holiday Tree Farms, a com- pany based in Corvallis, Ore., that sells up to 1 million trees a year, is willing to go along with the program but doesn’t see a direct benefit, said Greg Rondeau, its sales manager. The firm sees more value in working directly with its chain store customers, which Farmers who support the program see such arguments as short-sighted. Promoting the Christmas tree industry as a whole — rather than farmers promoting themselves individually — is necessary to keep the crop relevant in consumers’ minds, according to checkoff support- ers. A sustained promotional campaign is the best way to accomplish that goal, said Jim Rockis, the board’s chairman and a West Virginia farmer. “Changing a mindset takes time,” Rockis said. “You’re not going to do this overnight.” Aside from promotions, the checkoff also raises funds for agronomic research across several regions, he said. The program is investing about $300,000 with eight universities, which will test new tree species, study disease problems and seek new slug control methods, among other projects. Unless growers are willing to pay for the studies, they may simply never be done, Rockis said. “A lot of funding for extension and land grant uni- versities, especially for minor crops like Christmas trees, is no longer available.” Farmers should also re- member that they’re compet- ing with rivals who have deep pockets: Artificial tree manu- facturers and marketers, said O’Connor, the board’s execu- tive director. “We need to go toe-to-toe with them as best as we can,” he said. Consumer research con- ducted by the board found that Christmas tree growers face serious obstacles in winning over Millennial consumers, the next generation to form fami- lies, O’Connor said. “This is really a critical fac- tor for the industry to under- stand,” he said. One serious misconcep- tion is that artificial trees are environmentally superior to real trees because they’re not chopped down. Most Millennials hold this view, not understanding that Christmas trees are specifi- cally planted to be harvested as a farm crop, similar to Hal- loween pumpkins, O’Connor said. Only about 32 percent of Millennials grew up celebrat- ing Christmas with a real tree every year, compared to 57 percent for the baby boomer generation, the board’s re- search found. People who grow up with artificial trees are more likely to buy them when they form families, O’Connor said. “That’s the experience they had as a kid.” To counter these forces, the promotional campaign focuses on three core messages. The first is that real trees are better for the environment because they absorb carbon and release oxygen while they grow, then can be recycled or mulched instead of spending thousands of years in a land- fill. The second is that choos- ing a real tree is a fun family experience that people will cherish and remember for years. It’s also a way to con- nect directly with agriculture, which Millennials desire. The third is that real trees create business for American farmers, as opposed to over- seas manufacturers who rely on petroleum-based plastics. Due to consumer research and a strong public response, the board decided on a social media-heavy campaign that focuses on about 30 videos created by Concept Farm, an advertising agency in New York City. In its advertisements, the program must be careful not to be derogatory toward artifi- cial trees, which is prohibited by USDA, O’Connor said. For example, an advertise- ment comparing them to toilet brushes was rejected by the agency, he said. On the other hand, the program can discuss how ar- tificial trees are manufactured and disposed of, O’Connor said. “We can deal with facts.” USDA’s edict against negative campaigning even extends to the term “fake,” which the board can’t use in its promotions, said Malone, a farmer and board member. “They think of it as a pejo- rative,” she said. Although Facebook videos and posts are the “main hub” of the promotional campaign, the program is also using Ins- tagram and Twitter. Print, online and television reporters can pull information from the program’s media re- sources, such as a “myth-bust- ing” infographic about Christ- mas trees. The board is sponsor- ing Christmas tree lightings in multiple major cities and conducting a “satellite media tour” with several news sta- tions, which will conduct re- mote interviews with a Christ- mas tree farmer. Several lifestyle bloggers, who typically have a reach of a quarter-million readers, are being targeted as “social influ- encers” who can advise their followers on the benefits of real trees. The 200,000th tree will be delivered to military fam- ilies through the “Trees for Troops” program, which will be highlighted in promotions. Throughout these different communication channels, the program’s three core messag- es are heavily emphasized. “People should be proud of their decision to have a real tree,” said Malone. Tax bill projected to raise the federal deficit by $1.5 trillion over 10 years TAX from Page 1 Courtesy Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife A dead Hereford calf discovered by a WDFW Contract Range Rider June 12 in Ferry County, Washington, was confirmed as a wolf depredation. Sherman pack attacked 3 more calves between July 12 and Aug. 23 WOLF from Page 1 Chronic depredations led the WDFW to shoot one of two wolves in the pack Sept. 1. The pack formed in 2016 when a fe- male left the Profanity Peak pack and paired with a male wolf. The female was hit and killed by a vehicle March 20, 2017. By the time the grazing sea- son neared, the surviving male, who was wearing a radio collar, was travel- ing with another wolf. The two wolves moved into territo- ry occupied the summer before by the Profanity Peak pack, which was linked to 15 depredations in 2016. The de- partment responded by shooting seven of the pack’s wolves. The lone surviv- ing adult left the territory last spring, according to WDFW. Before the grazing season began, five range-riders hired by WDFW be- gan patrolling the grazing allotments to look for wolves. Patrols increased after WDFW determined June 12 that the Sherman pack had attacked a calf. The pack attacked three more calves between July 12 and Aug. 23. WDFW Director Jim Unsworth authorized killing one wolf Aug. 25. Initially, the department hoped to trap and euthanize a wolf. But the pack attacked a fifth calf Aug. 28 several miles from where WDFW was trap- ping. WDFW shot the male wolf from a helicopter Sept. 1. The helicopter cost $9,868. WDFW staff time and travel made up the rest of the operation’s cost. Martorello said the department be- lieves wolves are still overlapping the grazing allotments. “We have had reports of wolves in the area. I would fully expect there to be wolf activity,” he said. In addition to hiring range-riders, WDFW spent $35,000 to help four pro- ducers pay for preventive measures. At least four other producers were inter- ested in the cost-sharing agreements, but the department had exhausted the funds, according to the report. WDFW also killed two wolves last summer in the Smackout pack in Ste- vens County. WDFW policy allows for possibly culling a pack after three dep- redations within 30 days or four depre- dations within 10 months. income tax return — to take an additional 20 percent de- duction. About 94 percent of all farms and ranches are orga- nized as pass-through business- es, Wolff said. “That, along with lower rates, should produce a tax re- duction for most farmers and ranchers,” she said. Finally, Wolff said, no con- versation about the tax bill is complete without noting a dou- bling of the exemption from fed- eral estate tax from $5.5 million per person to $11 million per person. Republicans initially called for a full repeal of the es- tate tax, arguing that it burdens farmers and ranchers passing their business from one genera- tion to the next. “The bill is very positive for agriculture,” Wolff said. “Farm- ers and ranchers were very vo- cal about telling their members of Congress what was important to them.” But that doesn’t mean there aren’t also concerns. Kristine Tidgren, assistant director at the Center for Ag- ricultural Law and Taxation at Iowa State University, agreed about the potential for signifi- cant tax breaks in the short term. Those provisions, however, will expire in 2026, she said, which injects a level of uncertainty in the long term. Tidgren will also be watching how the tax bill affects the U.S. PAYGO law, which requires that new legislation affecting reve- nue and spending on entitlement programs does not increase pro- jected budget deficits. The tax bill is projected to raise the federal deficit by $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years. That means other farm pro- grams and payments could see cuts, Tidgren said. “We’re watching how (law- makers) are going to move for- ward with that issue,” Tidgren said. Zack Clark, director of gov- ernment relations for the Na- tional Farmers Union in Wash- ington, D.C., echoed worries over the deficit and how tax re- form will affect the 2018 Farm Bill. “We’ve got a debt problem,” Clark said. “Now we have less revenue. If the majority is se- rious about cutting the deficit, it’s gotta come from federal programs we care about.” Specifically, Clark men- tioned potential cuts to crop insurance, the Conservation Reserve Program and Supple- mental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. “We don’t know if that will be the case, but we imagine we’ll be fighting harder for ev- ery single dollar,” Clark said. “We think that this tax bill cre- ates a self-fulfilling prophecy that will allow fiscal conserva- tives to go in and cut federal programs they don’t believe in, in the name of debt reduction.”