Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Capital press. (Salem, OR) 19??-current | View Entire Issue (Sept. 6, 2019)
6 CapitalPress.com Editorials are written by or approved by members of the Capital Press Editorial Board. Friday, September 6, 2019 Opinion All other commentary pieces are the opinions of the authors but not necessarily this newspaper. Editor & Publisher Managing Editor Joe Beach Carl Sampson opinions@capitalpress.com | CapitalPress.com/opinion Our View Voters are trying to get Brown’s attention T he efforts to put a recall of Oregon Gov. Kate Brown on the ballot is a visible sign of the rural-urban divide. There are two separate efforts underway — one sponsored by the Oregon Republican Party, the other by a self-proclaimed grassroots orga- nization that goes by the descriptive moniker “Flush down Kate Brown.” To get a recall on the ballot, either group needs to collect 280,050 valid signatures from registered voters by Oct. 14. Realistically, either effort will need well over 300,000 signa- tures to survive challenges. Our colleagues at the Oregon Cap- ital Bureau talked with people sign- ing the petitions at the Oregon State Fair. The majority of those interviewed at the fair struggled actively working against to specify why they their interests. wanted to recall Brown, Kate Brown is not a and seemed to be doing wildly popular governor. so based on a gut feel- As secretary of state, she ing. Most commonly, ascended to office when people brought up cap John Kitzhaber resigned and trade — a failed in 2015. She barely won effort by the Legisla- a majority of votes in the ture that Brown backed special election to ful- fill Kitzhaber’s remain- to curb greenhouse gas ing term in 2016 and emissions. won just 50% of the vote “My understanding is Oregon Governor in 2018 when she was that a lot of people just Kate Brown elected for her own four- don’t think Salem cares year term. A recent poll about them right now,” found her to be one of the least popu- said Linn County GOP Chair Adam lar governors in the country. Keaton. Recall efforts are a long shot, even Indeed. Many Oregonians feel that with officials of marginal popularity. political leaders such as Brown have In the absence of actual corruption not only abandoned them but are or malfeasance, we question the wis- dom of trying to overturn legitimate elections either by recall or impeach- ment. It’s a clumsy way to reconcile policy differences. Still, we understand the frustra- tion that farmers, ranchers, loggers, truckers, fishermen and other work- ing Oregonians — rural and urban — are feeling. They think they have no other options left but to replace Kate Brown with the next officer in the line of succession — state Treasurer Tobias Read, a Democrat who is at least as liberal as Brown. What they really want is for Brown and other urban leaders to hear their concerns and take them seriously. Do they have her attention now? We can only hope. Our View All sides of wolf issue need to settle down N o state has made a bigger monetary in- vestment in managing wolves than Wash- ington. Wildlife managers even went so far as to hire a high-priced mediator in an attempt to find middle ground on key issues involving the apex predators and their impact on ranches. The idea, as we recall, was for the various parties to develop a relationship based on trust and understanding so the management of wolves could be rationally discussed. Apparently, some groups didn’t get the memo. Currently, a few pro-wolf groups are running to court any time the state Department of Fish and Wildlife doesn’t heed their demands. Lately, the atmosphere has got- ten so heated that the department called off a series of 14 meetings about how the wolves should be managed. The reason? Concerns for the safety of those attending. The department didn’t specify where the threats originated, but it needs to be said to those groups: Settle down. We fully understand that wolves are really import- ant to some folks. That’s fine, but they are also a big problem for some ranchers who for decades have raised cattle in the far corners of the state. Only after the wolves showed up and became protected under the federal Endangered Species Act did any problems start. We urge those folks who continue to hyperven- tilate over wolves to consider this fact: There are plenty of wolves in the world. The government of Canada estimates about 50,000 are in that nation. Of that, an estimated 10,000 are in British Columbia, just north of the border with Washington. In fact, that’s where most of the wolves now in Washington came from. If people want to see wolves they can head north. It’s only a short drive from Seattle. Thousands of wolves also live in Alaska, where they have caused problems for wildlife managers for many decades. Wolves are now a fact of life in Washington. As their numbers increase they should be managed like any other game animal. Ranchers will continue to cooperate with wildlife managers and use non-lethal means of keeping wolves away from livestock. But when wolves cause problems by repeat- edly attacking and killing livestock, they should be culled. That’s the responsible thing to do. READERS’ VIEW Be careful when you criticize people who feed you In response to a recent letter to the editor regarding wolves. The wolves that have been introduced by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife are not native. They are from Canada and are bigger and much different than the native gray wolves. It is difficult for farmers and ranchers, who are a minority of less than 2%, to have the other 98% that do not have a clue tell them what they should be doing. And that includes environmental- ists. That 2% is feeding the other 98% and you are trying to put them out of business. The question is: How are you qualified to draw a conclusion on an extremely important problem that has been imposed on cattle- men by people who live in cities? Cattlemen have lost a significant amount of income as a result of this experiment without any say in this matter, which affects their livelihood and puts them and their families in danger as they live where the wolves live. As to the cost of wolves regarding loss of production, many studies in Montana, where they were first introduced, have proved the cost is considerable, not only in lost animals but in total production as they cannot graze normally. Sadly, there is not enough space and time to educate people about the complexities of ag as it requires more ability and tenacity than most people have. Question: Why should cattle- men have no say and have to bear the expense of an experiment that our great grandfathers already fig- ured out (that wolves are preda- tors and have no value)? Why aren’t wolves evenly dis- tributed in the state? You do not want them in your yard! Regarding grazing fees, they only look cheap to you! Cattlemen have been severely cut back and fees and have increased, and log- ging has been eliminated so now we have forest fires that cost the taxpayer millions. The Indians log, graze and kill wolves! All of the things that were done to make this country great are no longer good. The new genera- tion of educated idiots is in charge now! Example: The WDFW pur- chases a ranch or farm that the owner was making a living on and it must have had wildlife on it, or why would they buy it? They purchase it and five years later it has less wildlife and now it is an expense to the taxpayer. They buy an alfalfa farm, then they quit farming the alfalfa and again it goes from supporting a family to a welfare farm that the taxpay- ers now support, and we call that progress! From an 84-year-old who is proud to have been a farmer and rancher and knows how tough it is — we should be careful when we criticize the people who feed us! Don Young Sunnyside, Wash. Celebrities do what they can for climate Regarding your editorial opin- ion of Aug. 9, 2019, “The rich and famous party for climate change,” rang a little hollow to us. You had our interest up until you stated, “Former President Obama may have also attended.” May! May! You might as well have said Elvis may have sat at his right and the Seven Dwarfs may have sat at his left. Get your facts straight. Climate Change is real and will affect all of us, rich, poor, farmer, rancher, banker and philanthropist. It is too late in the climate crisis to start making up facts and innuen- does to divide people. As a country and a global community we need to stand together with the facts to survive. As for the hypocrisy of celebri- ties, they are doing what they can in their position to raise awareness. We should not condemn them. We all need to do what we can. On our small farm we have planted over 75 red and sugar maples over the past 2 years plus 67 milkweed plants along the fence lines. We do not till our pastures but harrow and reseed. What are you encouraging farmers to do? Finally, the Capital Press can- not have it both ways. Your paper supports President Trump who is a climate denier, he says “hoax.” Don’t condemn the rich and famous for taking a stand. Call out the “rich and famous” who raised millions of dollars in the Hamp- tons last week to support Trump, a climate denier! Be part of the solution and help stop the divisiveness. The clock is ticking. Bill and Kathi Wheeler Ariel, Wash. More than hope needed for dairies The writers of the Opinion Our View section appearing in Cap- ital Press, Aug. 16 issue, high- light the poor prices that farm- ers are receiving for commodities, including milk, and are “hoping for progress on all of the trade fronts” and end saying “hope is all we have right now.” Wrong! U.S. dairy farmers have much more than “hope” to deal with poor milk prices. NDPO has new co-op man- agement policies that will identify profitable demand for milk and dairy products and will help dairy farmers share in balancing the milk supply they make with prof- itable demand for their milk. To learn more about new co-op management policies which dairy farmer co-op members can imple- ment, which will produce the right amount of milk yielding a profit- able milk price from the market- place for most dairy farmers, con- tact Mike Eby, NDPO Chairman, (717) 799-0057, mikee@ndpo.us, or like us on Facebook-National Dairy Producers Organization, or www.nationaldairyproducersorga- nization.com Bob Krucker Idaho dairy farmer Jerome, Idaho Wolf recovery has no value to Oregon A La Grande Observer story published June 29 titled, “Wolves Continue to Drive Debate” by Stephan Hamway deserves a response based on facts. In that story retired Forest Ser- vice Hydrologist Suzanne Fouty expressed the opinion that wolves would act as “security guards” for streamside vegetation by keep- ing the deer etc. from grazing wil- lows and shrubs along the banks of streams to oblivion, thus allow- ing the shade to cool the water for the fish. Fact No. 1: A four-inch diam- eter tree consumes 40 gallons of water per day. If the streams were choked with willows, etc., what water would be left for fish, par- ticularly during the hotter late summer and early fall when flows are already low? The story also stated that a 2006 study indicated that Oregon had enough territory to support 1,450 wolves. Fact No. 2: According to the International Wolf Center, a wolf needs 7 pounds of food per day to flourish and reproduce. 1,450 wolves would need over 10,000 pounds per day, or over 3 mil- lion pounds per year. If their aver- age prey weighed 150 pounds that would be over 24,000 kills per year. Fact No. 3: According to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, total deer population is 33% below the management objective at 226,000 deer, accord- ing to the 2017 survey. If the wolves only preyed on deer they could easily decimate the deer population in a few years, but we all know that deer are not their only prey. Fact No. 4: Wolves are pack predators. If there are 8 to 12 hun- gry wolves near livestock, fladry and range riders are not going to stop them from taking livestock. Wolves are a smart predator, they know that most cattle are already habituated to stock dogs and will not initially fear the presence of wolves. The wolf has also figured out that a beef calf does not flee as fast as other wildlife. I will now state my opinion based on fact. Increasing wolf numbers will create more pre- dation on livestock. The Wolf Recovery Program has cost over $8 million with zero benefit other than creating a subset of bureau- crats that are employed in the pro- gram. This program in my opin- ion is a sick joke that has no value to the citizens of Oregon. John Coote Island City, Ore.
