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.