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.”