6 CapitalPress.com Editorials are written by or approved by members of the Capital Press Editorial Board. February 2, 2018 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 It’s time for Trump to follow through on trade T wo national wheat groups say now that the members of the former Trans-Pacific Partnership have held talks on a new multilateral trade deal without the United States, wheat growers can expect an annual $200 million tariff disadvantage with competitors in the region. They rightly await action from the Trump administration. The countries remaining in the negotiations represent both major customers and competitors. In 2008, the United States began multilateral negotiations with Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam on the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact. It was the signature trade initiative of the Obama administration. From the get-go the deal Port of Portland Wheat bound for Asia is loaded into a ship at the Port of Portland. U.S. farmers are at a $200 million annual tariff disadvantage now that the 11 remaining nations in the Trans-Pacific Partnership are continuing without the U.S. drew fire across the board, but particularly from the left. The negotiations were said to be too secret, the concessions to big business too big, the safeguards on human rights and labor too weak, and the whole deal was said to be too complicated. Things went south from there. By the time the 2016 presidential campaign rolled around, it was hard to find any U.S. politician besides President Obama who had anything good to say about the deal, and even he was vague about the details because of that secrecy thing. He signed the deal, then turned Readers’ views Support renegotiating And along came Logging-environment trade deals debate shifting the Sparred Owl I do not understand produc- ers’ reluctance to have NAFTA renegotiated. One of the ways to get that done is threaten to can- cel and, if you have been watch- ing, that is what is going on. There are those of us who trade with Canadian customers and feel that NAFTA is one-sid- ed. Small seeds are produced in Canada and sold in the U.S. To ship to the states, they get an AOSCA (Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies) seed test, which is what is used here in the states, and load the truck and it arrives here. It would sur- prise you how many loads come to the Shedd, Ore., area to be sold and used in mixes. When we ship to Canada, we need to get a Canadian test, no issue with that, then pay a border broker $175/truck to cross the border. Then, if paperwork isn’t cleared ahead of time, seed must go into an approved warehouse and then be released by the au- thorities. Then there is the Pacific trade agreement. When we ship there it doesn’t matter how much test- ing we do. They have the right to sample test and reject contain- ers. Friends out of New Zealand shipping to the same countries have never had a container re- jected. So, support our government on negotiating new trade agree- ments. The other countries have proved they need the U.S. Donald Wirth Tangent, Ore. Regulate climate change hot air Two articles in the Jan. 5 Cap- ital Press refer to climate change. Does anyone really believe that a normally occurring cyclical event can be changed? Scientists researching arctic ice samples discovered occur- rences of climate change in past times (a revealing article on cli- mate change research by scien- tists was published by the New American magazine on Sept. 14). Just who benefits from pro- moting the notion of compli- ance with regulations? How can we, the people, be the cause of climate change because of our factories, the use of fossil fu- els, etc.? According to research, climate change occurred in pre- historic times when vehicles and cars did not exist. Has common sense disappeared from human- ity? In reading the article on reg- ulating emissions of cattle and other animals, maybe we should call for the regulation of the hot air emitting from promoters of these regulations — don’t you think? Mrs. M. Novak Yamhill, Ore. This stuff on Spotted Owls and Barred Owls is sure causing con- fusion in my recollection about bird species. In 1962, while studying for my master’s degree at the Uni- versity of New Mexico, I took a class in ornithology from the renown biologist Dr. James S. Finley. In our study on bird spe- ciation we discovered that birds, when isolated for many genera- tions, may evolve characteristics that upon observation appear to be unique. When the isolating factor has been removed, think glaciers during the ice age, the birds may again come in con- tact with each other. If they do, and they breed freely produc- ing viable offspring they are of the same species. If they do not breed, they are a distinct species and are recognized as such. What is not mentioned in this article is the Barred Owl and the Spot- ted Owl do breed and they do produce viable offspring called Sparred Owls. We learned that variation in species is an important part of biodiversity and is import- ant for the species to be able to adapt to evolutionary pressures. Hybridization in birds was not universally regarded in the field of ornithology. As near as I can figure these definitions still are accepted knowledge. At the time Dr. Finley stat- ed there were four species we might want to watch because they were starting to move. The Yellow-shafted Flicker, found east of the Rocky Mountains, was moving westward into the territory of the Red-shafted Flicker, found west of the Rocky Mountains. When this happened it was found that they did breed and they did produce viable off- spring. Scientists now recognize these birds should be identified as a single species called North- ern Flicker. He stated the other birds we should watch were the Barred Owl, found east of the Rocky Mountains and the Spotted Owl, found west of the Rocky Moun- tains. It took the Barred Owl a little longer to get to the West Coast because they took a route through Canada before arriving on the West Coast. When they did arrive they were pretty ag- gressive, part of that diversity thing. And they did breed free- ly, producing viable offspring called Sparred Owl. Now we see the government spending millions of dollars to keep those darn birds apart and where they have not been suc- cessful they are starting to refer to the Sparred Owls as hybrids. Next thing you know Ancestry. com will be calling the matches between the Irish and the En- glish hybrids. Carlisle Harrison Hermiston, Ore. I wish to compliment both Mark Turner and the Capital Press for the Jan. 19 Guest Comment ar- ticle: “Public deserves an honest debate over logging and wild- fire.” I sense a paradigm shift in the Loggers versus the Environmen- talists battle. As long as I can recall, the timber industry and environmental groups have been at “loggerheads,” and that dispute will likely continue ad infinitum if the environmental groups ig- nore the new aspects of reality presented by the change in con- ditions that we have all witnessed in the increasing number, size and devastation of Northwest wild- fires. Mark Turner clearly points out these new aspects of reality in his article. These changes have the potential to transcend the age-old debate and to bring the two sides together in a manner that has heretofore been unthinkable. The climate change debate: Mr. Turner neither affirmed nor denied climate change, yet most environmental groups are avid in their affirmation. The timber in- dustry does not have to hold an adversarial position, it can re- main neutral. If climate change is what is causing these record wildfires in the Northwest and forest practices can help mitigate the impact, then logging becomes a tool to prevent the wholesale assault of wildfire on the very en- vironment that environmentalists so dearly wish to protect. Loggers get to work and the environmentalists get to preserve what they have fought to preserve instead of watching it go up in smoke. That’s win/win. Smoke. That’s carbon, as Mr. Turner points out. If Washington and Oregon enact proposed legis- lation that caps carbon and taxes carbon polluters, the public for- ests could potentially be the big- gest offender. Not only do these massive wildfires produce vast, wasteful carbon, just as importantly they destroy the forest that is the best natural source of carbon seques- tration. That is a lose/lose situa- tion. If the Forest Service fails to put into place practices that will prevent such carbon pollution and mitigate against the destruction of natural sequestration, will they not be potentially liable under such new carbon tax laws? If not legally, certainly in the public’s perception. Mr. Turner points to how pri- vately managed forest lands do not suffer the same extreme loss- es, not remotely. Habitat loss. In public lands set apart for old growth habitat or specific areas designated for the protection of certain plant or ani- mal species, logging the margins or even strips within the desig- nated areas can act as firebreaks it over to Congress with little hope it would be ratified before the election. Bernie Sanders said TPP was a “global race to the bottom” to boost corporate profits. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton called TPP the “gold standard” of trade pacts, but candidate Clinton said that when she read the final text she couldn’t support it. Donald Trump said the deal undercut American workers and companies. So, no matter who won the 2016 election, the U.S. was bound to leave the deal. But, it is Trump who won on a promise he’d pull out of the pact and negotiate better bilateral deals with Pacific countries. Trump is 1-for-2 and wheat growers and other farmers who depend on trade, particularly in the Pacific Rim, are waiting for him to fulfill the other half of to preserve and protect what has been set aside as that which needs to be protected. Huge contigu- ous areas without wildfire breaks simply put all the eggs in one big basket and put the preserve and the flora and fauna contained within that basket at greater risk of loss. This is a pivotal moment in our local history and a chance to move forward from a belea- guered conflict to a partnership that would serve the public inter- ests. One need simply imagine 10 years down the road based upon what we have seen over the past 5 years in terms of Northwest wildfires to judge that our present course will not sustain us and a change in tactics and alliances is going to be required. Brian Quigley Camano Island, Wash. Agricultural census is too much We recently completed the 2017 Census of Agriculture. Like most of you, we are obligated by law to fill this out. It seems this census has become both needlessly complex and need- lessly intrusive. The sheer length is daunting. It asks 24 pages of ques- tions. Some require a review of the farm records. Some it seems could have legal implications. Why do they want to know about my irrigation practices, wa- ter rights and what I’ve used within 5 years (Sec 4)? Who else has to provide the government an estimat- ed market value of his home prop- erty (Sec 31)? As a farm it might be worth one amount but as a sub- division or as a vacation/retirement home, quite another. As the farm is not for sale it is irrelevant, and any answer I give is only a guess. Do I need an accountant, an at- torney and an appraiser to fill out the ag census? Is the detailed per- sonal information required some- thing that can be used against me, or to market to me? Is the benefit worth the cost? This is more census than the founders envisioned. Jonathan Spero Grants Pass, Ore. Washington’s Hirst case and false science The Hirst court fish ruling re- minded me of the court ruling on the darter fish to stop a dam. It turned out to be false sci- ence and gullible lawyer judges. After the dam was stopped it was discovered there were all kinds of darter fish all over the place. That’s called false science. The same goes for wells af- fecting fish being false science — and very gullible lawyer judges. The U.S. Supreme Court has warned judges about false science, but some of them just don’t get it. William J. Purcell Lebanon, Ore. the promise. It’s unclear what the ever mercurial and pragmatic commander-in-chief really has in mind. Just last weekend the president said he’d be open to rejoining the TPP, now known as Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement, if the remaining countries come up with a better deal. It’s hard to imagine the remaining partners will craft a better deal for the United States without the United States sitting at the table, but conventional wisdom doesn’t count for as much now as it once did. U.S. farmers export $135 billion in agricultural products each year. They have a lot riding on trade and are understandably anxious that their interests are actively advanced. Guest comment Barry Bushue Cap and trade will hurt, not bolster, the ag community By BARRY BUSHUE For the Capital Press T he agriculture community has been a vital part of our region’s economy for over a century, em- ploying over 300,000 people across our great state and generating billions in revenue each year. As business lead- ers, we invest heavily in sustainability and resource stewardship to reduce our footprint. It’s paid off. Oregon’s share of U.S. greenhouse gas emis- sions is less than 1 percent and is on a clear downward trend — emissions are down 13 percent in the last 15 years. Our state has been a leader in build- ing one of the cleanest economies in the country. Yet, legislators have in- troduced a proposal that would apply California’s costly and unnecessary carbon pricing program to Oregon. More than anyone else, farm and ranch families depend on a healthy environ- ment, so we share legislators’ goal of protecting it. However, we fundamen- tally differ on the proposal being con- sidered this session. The proposal being considered will not decrease global greenhouse gas emissions. However, it will reduce the viability of Oregon’s homegrown businesses and levy downstream fi- nancial impacts on farm families. The cap and trade bill will drive up the cost of resources we need to support investments in carbon reduction and grow valuable jobs across our state. By adopting California’s unsuccessful cap and trade program and creating an economy-wide price on carbon we would immediately drive up the cost of electricity, increase fuel by a minimum of 16 cents per gallon and drive thou- sands of jobs away from Oregon. Furthermore, with 80 percent of our ag production leaving the state, it’s imperative we maintain a compet- itive edge in the global marketplace. As price-takers, farmers have a limit- ed ability to recoup added production costs. Cap and trade will reduce our competitiveness by levying a new layer of costs onto Oregon producers that our counterparts in other states and parts of the world do not have. Oregon is responsible for .1 percent of global carbon emissions, mean- ing you could eliminate our economy entirely and not make a dent in glob- al emissions. Our state is one of the cleanest in the nation, and we’ve made tremendous strides to make it even cleaner. It makes no sense to increase the cost of living for Oregon families and jeopardize thousands of agricul- ture jobs to meet a goal we’re already advancing toward. Oregonians should reject calls to adopt California’s cap and trade law. Instead, let’s come to- gether and continue the great progress we’re making together in reducing GHG emissions. Barry Bushue is president of the Or- egon Farm Bureau Federation.