6
CapitalPress.com
January 19, 2018
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
A split decision for Idaho’s ‘ag gag’ law
T
he 9th U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals has struck
down as unconstitutional
most of Idaho’s so-called “ag
gag” law, which criminalized
hidden-camera recordings of farm
operations.
The ruling rejected Idaho’s
argument that prohibiting an
audio or visual recording of
agricultural operations is a form
of regulating an activity, rather
than an expression of speech.
While we sympathize with
the circumstances that led the
Idaho Legislature to pass the law
in 2014, the law played fast and
loose with the First Amendment
and presented some thorny
practical issues for producers who
sought prosecutions.
Lawmakers passed the
statute in response to public
backlash against a dairy company
whose employees were filmed
abusing cattle by an undercover
animal activist. The abuse was
undeniable. But it occurred
outside the presence of the dairy
owner, who was mortified at what
he later saw on tape and took
appropriate action.
The law made it a crime to
make undercover recordings or
gain employment under false
pretenses at a farm.
The appeals court upheld a
trial court’s ruling that the law’s
prohibition against making an
undercover recording violated
free speech rights. Specifically,
the ruling rejected Idaho’s
argument that prohibiting an
audio or visual recording of
agricultural operations is a form
of regulating an activity, rather
than prohibiting an expression of
speech.
At the same time, the 9th
Circuit said two provisions of the
law — using misrepresentation to
obtain records and employment
with the goal of causing harm
— should be allowed to stand.
The law allows victims to claim
a judgment equal to twice actual
monetary damages.
Supporters say this largely
vindicates the purpose of the law.
Those are important protections.
From a public relations
standpoint, enforcement of
any part of the law would be
problematic for producers. No
matter how a defendant gains
access to a property, the evidence
against him will be a video of
what will appear to a jury to be
abuse against farm animals.
We see it possible for a
producer to win on the merits,
be handed a monetary award and
exit the courthouse as the villain.
We also question how much of
a deterrence the law, even in its
original form, will be to radical
animal activists. Whether their
tape is trumped up or legitimate,
a trial will give activists just
the venue they’re looking for to
publicize the cause. An acquittal
would mean vindication, but a
conviction could be better still —
nothing is better than to be made
a martyr.
We continue to believe that
the best defense is never having
to go to court. That means giving
your prospective employees a
thorough vetting; having clear
and enforced policies against
abusive treatment; and being
vigilant that there is nothing
happening that you wouldn’t
want to see posted on YouTube.
Public deserves an
honest debate over
logging and wildfires
O ur V iew
By MARK TURNER
For the Capital Press
H
Trump
Trade a make-or-break issue for
F
or many in agriculture,
there’s a lot to like about
President Donald Trump.
The way the president and his
Cabinet members have pumped
the brakes on overreaching
regulations alone is enough to
show U.S. farmers and ranchers
that some level of common sense
has returned to how the federal
government manages resources.
The encyclopedic Waters of
the U.S. rules were a perfect
example of how regulation
writers can spin out of control.
By the time the rules were
written, they had created more
problems than they solved,
and farmers and ranchers were
worried that any pothole on their
property could be regulated.
Other regulations written by
the Obama administration had
sent a lightning bolt of concern
through farmers and ranchers
as they worried how much
the federal government would
intrude on their livelihood.
When Trump shrank
the size of several national
monuments, he demonstrated
an understanding that there is
more to managing land than
piling up brownie points with
special interest groups. As an
aside, those who want to enlarge
national monuments have ample
opportunity. Congress can do that
any time it wants.
But there remains an
undercurrent of concern about
Trump and his administration:
trade. For many in agriculture,
trade isn’t an issue. It’s the
issue. About 90 percent of the
wheat grown in the Northwest
is sold to customers in Asia and
elsewhere. Dairy, cattle and pork
producers rely on exports. So do
almond and hazelnut growers and
apple, cherry and other tree fruit
growers. In fact, if it’s grown in
the West, odds are much of it is
sold overseas.
To do that, farmers, ranchers
and processors rely on treaties
such as the North American
Free Trade Agreement. NAFTA
includes Canada and Mexico.
Together, those nations bought
$39 billion in U.S. agricultural
products last year. The treaty
has opened many doors for U.S.
farmers and ranchers.
Last year, the U.S. posted an
overall agricultural trade surplus
of $21.3 billion worldwide.
Other U.S. industries did not
fare as well under NAFTA, so
the administration has set about
renegotiating it. Agriculture’s
plea: Do no harm.
During the campaign, Trump
and his opponent, Hillary
Clinton, took turns bashing
the Trans-Pacific Partnership,
which included 11 other nations,
including Canada, Mexico and
another huge customer, Japan,
which bought $11.8 billion in
U.S. agricultural crops and goods
last year.
What they apparently didn’t
realize was that agriculture needs
free trade. Without an agreement,
tariffs and other roadblocks put
U.S. farmers and ranchers at a
disadvantage.
Trump has promised a better
NAFTA and individual trade
agreements with TPP partners.
Progress has also been made with
China, which last year bought
$22 billion in U.S. agricultural
crops and goods, making it our
biggest foreign customer.
Agriculture sees a lot of
good in Trump. He’s tossed
overwrought and underthought
regulations into the waste bin.
He’s shrunk national monuments
that infringed on private property
owners and he’s offered hope for
an industry that has struggled
against public misperceptions.
But until he shows significant
progress on trade, agriculture
will be forced to withhold final
judgment on his administration.
For Trump and agriculture,
trade is a make-or-break issue.
American Farm Bureau Federation
President Donald Trump speaks to the American Farm Bureau Federation convention last week in Nashville, Tenn. While he
has made a lot of progress on many issues important to agriculture, significant progress is needed on trade.
as anyone else no-
ticed that some en-
vironmental types
seem so dead set against
logging that they would
rather burn up our national
forests than allow any kind
of logging to take place?
Their tendency is to spin
the facts in order to make
the public think that log-
ging is always bad.
Out here in Oregon, last
year we had another record
year of forest fires. You
would think that every-
one would recognize the
importance of not burning
up our forests, for a whole
host of reasons. Not these
environmentalists, though.
Their first claim is that
it’s all because of climate
change. Now I’m not here
to make any claims about
the validity or invalidity of
climate change. All I know
is that our national forests
are burning up.
However, that is not
true of our well-managed
private forest lands. In fact,
about the same number
of fires started on private
land as on federal land.
However, over 95 percent
of the acres burned were
on federal land. If it was
all due to climate change,
wouldn’t just as many pri-
vate acres burn as public?
My contention is that
it is all about how the for-
ests are managed. Our pri-
vate forests are generally
healthy and productive,
while our public forests are
generally unmanaged, un-
healthy and unproductive.
Our environmentalist
friends don’t seem to be
concerned by this, howev-
er. In fact, there is at least
one well-known “scientist”
that has been touting the
importance of fires to the
ecology. I’m sure that there
is some validity to that
statement, as long as the
fires are on a small scale.
However, when the fires
get to the scale that we
have seen in recent years,
the negatives far outweigh
the positives.
And how about all the
emissions that these fires
produce? Here in Oregon
there is a big push to re-
duce our carbon emissions.
A new gas tax here and a
diesel tax there. Plus pro-
posals for carbon taxes.
However, they don’t
seem to care that the small
savings in carbon emis-
sions these schemes will
produce are minuscule
compared to the carbon
emissions from our forest
fires. If we could keep our
forests from burning, we
would not only reduce the
amount of carbon emitted
into the atmosphere, as
long as these forests are
healthy, we will be taking
Guest
comment
Mark Turner
carbon out of the atmo-
sphere.
The next issue is the
erosion that these large
fires cause. Most of these
large fires occur on steep
and sometimes unsta-
ble slopes. Many of us in
the timber industry were
wondering what the en-
vironmentalists’ response
would be when the heavy
rains came this fall and the
hillsides started washing
away. You can only imag-
ine how surprised I was
to hear a Forest Service
employee explaining, over
the radio, that “there was
much needed turbidity and
a lot of large woody debris
going into the streams in
the burned areas.” Then
the employee went on to
explain that “it would be
really good for the fish.”
To say that I was flab-
bergasted would be an un-
derstatement! Particularly
since we are not allowed to
put any turbidity into any
streams from our logging
operations. In fact, a few
years ago, there was a law-
suit claiming that turbidity
from a logging operation
should be considered pol-
lution. In my book, tur-
bidity is turbidity. If it is
considered pollution when
it comes from a logging
operation, it should also be
considered pollution when
it comes from a burned
area — or from anywhere.
And finally, what about
all of the habitat loss?
Many of you may remem-
ber all of the loggers that
were put out of business
when the spotted owl was
listed. Well, it turns out
that the biggest threat to
the spotted owls aren’t log-
gers.
It is barred owls and
forest fires. It turns out, re-
cent data have shown that
spotted owl habitat is espe-
cially susceptible to large
forest fires. In fact, spotted
owl habitat burns hotter
and more completely than
most other areas.
I think it’s time for a
much more frank and hon-
est discussion about these
issues. For my part, I think
we would be much bet-
ter off to actively manage
these forests, making them
more fire resistant and uti-
lizing the extra materials
for lumber and biofuels,
rather than sending them
up in smoke.
Mark Turner is the
president of the American
Loggers Council. Mark
and his brother, Greg, op-
erate Turner Logging out
of Banks, Ore. Mark is an
active leader of the Asso-
ciated Oregon Loggers.