6
CapitalPress.com
Editorials are written by or
approved by members of the
Capital Press Editorial Board.
Friday, July 2, 2021
All other commentary pieces are
the opinions of the authors but
not necessarily this newspaper.
Opinion
Editor & Publisher
Managing Editor
Joe Beach
Carl Sampson
opinions@capitalpress.com | CapitalPress.com/opinion
Our View
A taking, no matter how brief, is a taking
T
he U.S. Supreme Court last
week rightly upheld private
property rights in a case that
pitted California farmers against
union organizers.
California regulation gave union
representatives freedom to enter pri-
vate farm operations up to three times
per day, 120 days per year to organize
workers.
Cedar Point Nursery filed suit in
federal court, complaining that an
unannounced, pre-dawn “invasion” by
bullhorn-wielding organizers from the
United Farm Workers union disrupted
its strawberry operation, violated its
private property rights and consti-
tuted an unconstitutional taking. It was
joined by Fowler Packing Co.
The ag businesses lost in the trial
court and their appeal was dismissed
by the liberal 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals.
But in a 6-3 decision,
the nation’s highest court
ruled California’s regu-
lation appropriated for a
third party the owners’
The U.S.
right to exclude people
Supreme
from their operations —
Court
a fundamental right of
property ownership.
It also brushed aside arguments that
the limited access afforded by the regu-
lation did not constitute an uncompen-
sated government taking, instead rul-
ing that a taking occurs whether the
granted access is permanent or tempo-
rary, limited or continual.
The majority opinion said the rule
effectively “appropriates a right of
access” for union organizers to come
onto the farm properties “at will for
three hours a day, 120 days a year,”
pleasure,” Roberts said.
The majority held that an owner’s
right to keep union representatives and
other members of the public off their
property did not preclude the govern-
ment from entering under legitimate
circumstances, such as with a search
warrant or to conduct health and safety
inspections required as a condition to
certain business licenses.
“With regard to the complexi-
ties of modern society, we think they
only reinforce the importance of safe-
guarding the basic property rights that
help preserve individual liberty, as the
Founders explained,” he said.
We hope the ruling offers protec-
tion for all property owners from regu-
lators that are disposed to give nongov-
ernmental, third parties access for an
ever-expanding set of “public goods”
promoted by self-interested activists.
which runs counter to the Supreme
Court’s case law.
“The upshot of this line of precedent
is that government-authorized inva-
sions of property — whether by plane,
boat, cable, or beachcomber — are
physical takings requiring just compen-
sation,” Chief Justice John Roberts said
in the ruling.
A taking, no matter how brief and
limited, is still a taking.
The California regulation affects the
farmers’ right to exclude others from
their land, which is “one of the most
treasured” aspects of property own-
ership, he said. Without the rule, the
growers would have been allowed
to keep union organizers off their
property.
“We cannot agree that the right to
exclude is an empty formality, subject
to modification at the government’s
Our View
READERS’ VIEW
Don’t call it
‘China lettuce’
IDFG
Gray wolf
Excluding ranchers
from wolf case unjust
A
California judge last week issued
one of the most disconcerting deci-
sions involving wolves that we’ve
seen.
U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White of Oak-
land, Calif., is hearing a case related to efforts
by environmentalists to put gray wolves back
on the federal endangered species list.
But here’s the clinker: White decided
to exclude from the case the people most
directly impacted by wolves — ranchers.
Environmental groups are represented. So
are hunters, gun owners and the federal gov-
ernment. But ranchers were blocked from tak-
ing part, other than being allowed to file a
friend of the court brief.
It should be noted that American ranch-
ers have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars
in livestock and spent almost as much money
trying to keep wolves away from their cattle
and sheep.
The attacks have not been isolated. Wher-
ever there are wolves, there are wolf prob-
lems as packs hunt down cattle and sheep and
kill and injure guardian dogs.
Yet, according to the judge, the National
Rifle Association and Safari Club Interna-
tional will be able to speak for ranchers.
We have nothing against the NRA or the
Safari Club; we just think it’s a misguided
decision. It’s like asking a NASCAR driver to
speak for a truck driver. They kind of do simi-
lar things, if you don’t think about it too hard.
Maybe the judge figured ranchers would
only add more of the same arguments to the
case and that having actual experience deal-
ing with wolves is no big deal. If so, he is
wrong. Nothing can replace experience in a
case such as this.
In the meantime, ranchers will be relegated
to the peanut gallery as the judge ponders a
case that will have a direct and potentially
detrimental impact on their livelihoods.
What prompted this case was last year’s
decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser-
vice to take the gray wolf off the list of ani-
mals protected by the federal Endangered
Species Act. The agency determined that
the population of gray wolves is growing
everywhere. Across the northern tier of the
U.S. and in other states, wolves have been
flourishing.
What started with 96 wolves in Idaho and
Yellowstone National Park has grown into
thousands of wolves.
The decision to take wolves off the list of
federally protected species and let states man-
age them was warranted by almost any mea-
sure. Yet environmental groups, which put
their opinions over those of expert wildlife
managers employed by the federal and state
governments, maintain that the “defenseless”
wolves must continue to be protected.
At the same time, ranchers continue to pay
the price of having wolves around. And the
judge in this most important case won’t let
them take part.
That’s just one more reason it is called a
legal system and not a justice system.
As a grower of small grains
and seed crops, the article titled
“China lettuce a challenging
weed for many wheat farmers”
caught my eye. Thinking it was a
new Asiatic species introduced to
our region, I read the article.
Turns out that “China lettuce”
is merely ignorant slang for the
plant called prickly lettuce, or as
it is known in the scientific com-
munity Lactuca serriola, i.e.
prickly lettuce in Latin. The plant
is native to the region around the
Mediterranean and was intro-
duced to both the Americas and
Asia from that point of origin. It
is the uncultivated sister species
to another European plant, Lac-
tuca sativa, the familiar salad let-
tuce found at your local grocer or
farmers’ market.
As the seeds of the cultivated
and wild forms are virtually the
same, the weed was likely spread
across the country by well-mean-
ing gardeners and farmers who
carried on the European tradition
of green salads.
Modern agricultural methods
with their reliance on herbicides
have made winter annuals such
as this wild lettuce a challenge.
Take a look at the amazing diver-
sity of cultivated lettuces in the
market or seed catalog, and you
can see why their wild relative is
well-equipped to evade whatever
chemistry is thrown at it.
Organic grain growers, such
as myself, follow the ancient
advice of letting the winter annu-
als sprout in a freshly prepared
field before drilling and pack-
ing in the desired winter annual,
be it mustard seed, barley, rye or
wheat. After thousands of years,
the method still works nicely.
Prickly lettuce has no con-
nection to China. Mischarac-
terizations such as “China let-
tuce” should have no place in
university communications or
trade publications. It is ignorant,
mean-spirited slang with no basis
in history, culture or genetics.
Anthony Boutard
Gaston, Ore.
E. Oregonians
fleeing to Idaho
Why would Oregon resi-
dents voting with wheels join the
rush to the Snake River Valley
in Idaho? Quite simply, the seat
of power in the Willamette Val-
ley has increasingly disenfran-
chised those east of the Cascade
Mountains. This isn’t anything
new because they have long
looked down on over-the-moun-
tain folks.
In the early 1840s they made
it clear that Blacks and other
minorities were prohibited from
settling in the Oregon territory,
which was governed from the
valley.
When Oregon statehood was
applied for they emphatically
stated that they didn’t want any-
thing east of the Cascades, for it
was fit only for “coyotes, rattle-
snakes and hostile Indians.”
A hundred and sixty years
later, we still have coyotes and
rattlesnakes. As for hostile Indi-
ans, I couldn’t say, because the
Native Americans I know all are
peaceful.
The Greater Idaho movement
is symptomatic of the growing
rift between rural, urban, red and
black states. As the disgruntled
flee it’s of concern to us natives
that they are bringing their issues
with them.
Michael F. Hanley IV
Jordan Valley, Ore.
Eastern Oregon
should be allowed
to join Idaho
Since I still believe in life, lib-
erty and the pursuit of happiness
of the U.S. Constitution I support
the people’s right in Eastern Ore-
gon to join the state of Idaho.
Their elected officials need
to step up to the plate and join
in their effort to support them
and make their wishes become a
reality.
It should be a no-brainer
for members of Congress to
approve. After all, they swore to
uphold that portion of the Consti-
tution when they took their oath
of office — life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness.
Allan Purcell
Leadore, Idaho
How to protect
our currency
In 10th Century England,
those found guilty of debas-
ing the currency had one hand
chopped off.
If we re-instated this law, we
would either have sane monetary
policy in this country or a lot of
one-handed politicians.
Roger Whitten
Deer Park,
Eastern Washington
Speak up to
demand change
In hearing a radio announce-
ment that our state budget has
escalated by billions of dollars
and the governor, not knowing
what to do with it, was going
to fund immigrants to build
businesses.
That didn’t sit well.
We are a compassion-
ate citizenry and already fund
immigrants.
This virus-driven economic
depression has closed businesses,
restaurants and caused job losses.
Shouldn’t we who are respon-
sible for this excess revenue be
the beneficiaries? Corporate and
property taxes can be canceled.
It’s my opinion but this is a
lack of stewardship, accountabil-
ity and concern for the citizens’
welfare.
I don’t know if anyone has
called their legislators. One
voice doesn’t make a change
but a chorus of voices can bring
about change, accountability and
justice.
Mrs. M.A. Novak
Yamhill, Ore.