6
CapitalPress.com
Editorials are written by or
approved by members of the
Capital Press Editorial Board.
Friday, December 17, 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
‘T
Gubernatorial candidates need
to listen to rural Oregon
is the season not only for
Christmas trees and year-
end celebrations but for
Oregon’s gubernatorial candidates
to shift into high gear in anticipation
of the 2022 election.
First off, we want to wish all of
the candidates the best. At last count,
28 candidates were in the running
for the Democratic or Republican
nominations, and a handful of oth-
ers were in the wings. Add the inde-
pendents and third-party candidates,
and Oregonians will have plenty to
choose from in the November gen-
eral election.
Running for governor is a gruel-
ing and sometimes demeaning under-
taking in which candidates are often
marketed like boxes of cereal. Armed
with the latest polls and piles of
donations, they ply their trade with
one goal in mind — getting Orego-
nians to vote for them.
EO Media Group File/East Oregonian
Oregonians will choose a new governor
next year.
Many of them seem to be saying,
“Be reasonable, and see it my way.”
Others seem to be quoting a char-
acter in the movie “Napoleon Dyna-
mite,” who promised during a student
council election, “Vote for me and all
of your dreams will come true.”
But that’s all backwards. Can-
didates need to reflect Oregonians’
views, not the other way around.
Only then will the state’s voters get
a governor worthy of their support.
We have a suggestion for the can-
didates. Instead of presenting voters
will pre-packaged platforms, why not
go where Oregonians live? And lis-
ten, really listen.
Those of us who live in rural parts
of the state — the vast majority of
Oregon’s 98,466 square miles —
know what it’s like to be ignored or,
almost as bad, patronized.
A candidate from Portland —
whose area is a puny 145 square
miles — or some other city will often
do a drive-by “appearance” in rural
Oregon aimed at getting some atten-
tion in the press and then head for the
next stop.
But in the process what do they
learn about rural Oregon? Do they
understand the stress and hardship
laws written for urban areas can have
on the rural residents and their econ-
omy? If they do, what have they done
about it?
Do they know the difference
A market
solution for
hunting access
W
Our View
Don Jenkins/Capital Press File
Cattle graze in a southwest Washington pasture. The state Department of Ecology has shifted gears on its
policy on watering cattle from rivers and streams.
Washington Ecology
thankfully taps the brakes
W
e are happy that the Washington
Department of Ecology has put the
brakes on adopting a policy that
would require every livestock owner to have a
permit to water their animals from a stream.
Now we only hope farmers and ranchers are
able to get the proposal quashed permanently.
Late last month Ecology announced that
it was revising its internal policy on cattle,
horses, sheep and other livestock drinking from
streams, ponds and other surface waters.
The policy — neither a law nor a regula-
tion — would have guided Ecology’s advice to
landowners and responses to complaints about
livestock.
Ecology’s policy lead Kasey Cykler told the
Capital Press that the department wanted to
clarify that the state’s water code, adopted in
1917, requires Ecology to appropriate water for
beneficial use.
“Really, it’s black and white, a water right is
required and always has been,” she said. “We
can’t have a policy in direct conflict with the
law.”
That took farmers and ranchers by surprise,
because they say that’s not how the department
has managed surface water in the past.
In 1994, Ecology adopted a policy encourag-
ing livestock owners to get their animals away
from streams by diverting water. The 1994 pol-
icy said nothing about a water right.
Ecology and farm groups agree that policy
improved water quality, as livestock owners
between throwing money at a prob-
lem and solving it?
And in this era of COVID, what,
specifically, would they have done
differently if they were governor?
Should tiny Burns be subjected to the
same regulations as Portland?
The answers to those and other
questions should not come from bul-
let points from a canned speech but
from serious discussions of the issues
with working rural Oregonians.
We’re not just talking about meet-
ing with the local bigwigs. We’re
talking about the folks who farm and
ranch, who work at dairies and nurs-
eries or who punch a time clock at a
factory or processing plant.
The squeaky wheels in Port-
land and the rest of urban Oregon
get plenty of attention. It’s time for
the politicians to listen to the drive
wheels that make this state’s econ-
omy go.
learned to pump small amounts of water from
streams and ditches to troughs. Area conser-
vation districts have helped farmers install the
necessary technology.
Conservation district officials say the depart-
ment’s new interpretation of water law would
likely stop those efforts and lead more produc-
ers without water rights to water their stock
directly from streams.
Our sources say a lot of producers don’t have
surface water rights because they didn’t think
they needed one. It’s unlikely they’d be able to
get one if they applied.
The impact of Ecology’s proposal could dev-
astate the livestock industry. Critics describe
the policy as a hammer the department could
use to smash the industry. Sympathetic legis-
lators say the department is trying to rewrite
water law while sidestepping the legislature.
“This is a massive sea change,” Washington
State Dairy Federation policy director Jay Gor-
don said. “It’s affecting massive numbers of
people around the state.”
As implausible as it seems, Ecology officials
seem equally perplexed that farmers and ranch-
ers have a different interpretation. While not
backing entirely away from the proposal, it has
agreed to take more time to listen to farmers
and ranchers.
Livestock producers and their allies should
make the most of the reprieve and do what-
ever possible to maintain the status quo as they
understand it.
ith hunting season
underway, a famil-
iar challenge unfolds.
Hunters seek publicly managed
wildlife, but much of the prime
habitat is owned by private land-
owners. While most landown-
ers aren’t opposed to granting
access to responsible hunters,
they understandably don’t want
to open their gates to every Joe
Schmoe with a rifle. And while
most hunters respect property
rights, no hunter can spend all
their free time knocking on land-
owners’ doors asking for permis-
sion to hunt.
It’s a classic problem of sup-
ply and demand. How can the
demanders of wildlife (hunt-
ers) connect with the suppliers
of wildlife habitat (landowners)
in a way that promotes win-win
cooperation instead of conflict
and resentment? Fortunately, as
new technologies emerge, some
entrepreneurs are taking a shot
at solving this problem — and
the early results are promising,
to the benefit of both hunters and
landowners.
One leader in this space is
LandTrust, a startup based in
Bozeman, Mont. LandTrust uses
an online marketplace to pro-
vide hunting opportunities on
private lands. Think of it like
Airbnb, but for private land rec-
reational access. Any landowner
can enroll, set their own rules
and prices, and manage who
has access to their property and
for what purposes. Hunters can
browse available hunting oppor-
tunities and request daily book-
ings at hundreds of properties
across the country.
This innovative approach has
the potential to solve many of
the West’s bitter hunting-access
debates, which often pit land-
owners against sportsmen. Land-
owners can earn extra revenue
from allowing managed hunt-
ing, while hunters gain exclusive
access that would otherwise be
difficult to find. And it’s not just
for the uber-rich, either. Hunting
opportunities on LandTrust are
available in some areas for as lit-
tle as $50.
Such a platform can be used
to enhance access for a vari-
ety of recreational purposes. On
LandTrust, landowners can opt
to allow walk-in access across
their property, allowing users to
unlock access to parcels of pub-
lic land that are otherwise inac-
cessible or difficult to reach.
And if hunting’s not your game,
LandTrust can be used to find
opportunities for fishing, hiking,
horseback riding, and even bird
watching.
GUEST
VIEW
Shawn
Regan
Other examples are pop-
ping up elsewhere. The Alber-
ta-based Canadian Land Access
System uses a similar online
interface to provide access to
private lands for hunting, fish-
ing, biking and other forms of
outdoor recreation. Users book
access to a property and then
scan in and out at access sites,
notifying the landowner of their
presence and allowing users to
receive up-to-date access rules.
Hipcamp uses a related model
for camping on private lands
throughout North America.
The benefit of these systems
is not just that they connect sup-
ply and demand — it’s also in
how they build trust among
users. The platforms verify
users’ identification, require
prepayment via credit card, and
provide dual rating systems to
ensure accountability and weed
out bad actors. They also solve
another crucial access chal-
lenge: liability. LandTrust, for
example, provides landowners
with general liability insurance
and handles all waivers from
users, giving landowners peace
of mind that they can allow
access without exposing them-
selves to liability risks.
Such an approach could
generate immense benefits for
ranchers and farmers and the
wildlife they support, which in
turn benefits all hunters. Mar-
ket approaches like this enable
landowners to diversify their
incomes and help sustain large
working landscapes from the
threat of subdivision or other
land uses. And they are far bet-
ter than mandates, regula-
tion, and other government-led
approaches to enhance access,
which can backfire by straining
relationships between landown-
ers and sportsmen.
The wildlife that hunters enjoy
doesn’t fall from the sky. Its sur-
vival often depends on the pri-
vate landowners who provide
habitat. The more we can do to
support entrepreneurial solutions
that help landowners continue
to provide habitat while also
enhancing public access, the bet-
ter off we all will be — hunters
and landowners alike.
Shawn Regan is the vice
president of research at the
Property and Environment
Research Center (PERC) in Boz-
eman, Mont.