6
CapitalPress.com
Friday, April 8, 2022
Editorials are written by or
approved by members of the
Capital Press Editorial Board.
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
The Supreme Court should strike down Prop 12
T
he U.S. Supreme Court has
agreed to review a ruling by
the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals, which last year upheld a
California law banning in-state sales
of certain products from farms that
use “extreme methods of farm ani-
mal confinement.”
It is bad law, and should be struck
down.
Officially the Farm Animal Con-
finement Act, Prop 12 bans the sale of
eggs, pork and veal products in Cal-
ifornia unless production facilities
meet animal-confinement standards
dictated by the state. The law applies
to products produced outside the state
of California.
The law was passed overwhelm-
ingly by California voters in 2018.
The National Pork Producers Coun-
cil and the American Farm Bureau
Federation filed a federal lawsuit in
U.S. District Court in San Diego,
arguing that subjecting out-of-state
producers to California’s regulations
violates the U.S. Constitution’s Com-
M. Spencer Green/Associated Press File
Farmers are worried about the impact
of a California law governing how hogs
and other farm animals are raised out
of state. The U.S. Supreme Court will
hear the case.
merce Clause.
Plaintiffs lost in the trial court, and
again on appeal to the 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals.
In 2021, the 9th Circuit determined
the law doesn’t have an “impermissi-
ble extraterritorial effect” because the
hog-raising standards only affect pork
sold in California and don’t dictate
prices or disfavor out-of-state meat.
“Under our precedent, unless a
state law facially discriminates against
Russian intervention has fueled
every wheat price spike since 2007
O
nce again, and tragi-
cally this time, Rus-
sian intervention
is the underlying source of
dramatic global wheat price
volatility.
“…We are closely mon-
itoring prices for the most
essential social goods such
as food, including bread,”
said Russian Prime Minister
Mikhail Mishustin recently
about its domestic wheat
supply. “Russian grain is in
good demand from abroad,
and its price is increasing.
That said, it is necessary to
provide the necessary raw
materials, first of all, to the
domestic baking industry.”
Consistent
protectionism
The prime minister made
this comment with specific
reference to the hyper reac-
tion of global wheat prices to
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine
and the immediate impacts
of the widespread economic
sanctions levied on Russia in
response. Yet it spotlights the
core tenets of Russia’s pro-
tectionist and heavy-handed
wheat supply and price con-
trol policies. Russian inter-
vention has been front and
center since the country first
entered the global wheat
export trade.
Anyone who does not
take the prime minister at his
word on this sets themselves
up for a very disappoint-
ing and expensive lesson.
Defending Russian domestic
supplies and keeping domes-
tic prices low by withhold-
ing supplies from the world
will always be their primary
wheat policy weapon. And
they deploy it without regard
for the harm and expense it
creates for anyone.
Underscoring this point,
the Russian Ministry of
Economy confirmed on
March 11 that they are ban-
ning wheat exports through
Aug. 31 to their fellow Eur-
asian Economic Union mem-
ber states, including its
Ukraine invasion staging
partner Belarus, along with
GUEST
VIEW
Vince
Peterson
Armenia, Kazakhstan and
Kyrgyzstan.
Every spike reveals
intervention
In six documented situ-
ations since 2007, when the
global wheat market showed
any sign of stress, the gov-
ernment of Russia stepped
in to impose an export ban,
export tax or export quota
to isolate their home mar-
ket. These actions intention-
ally limited world wheat
importers’ access to Russian
wheat supplies. This Russian
intervention further magni-
fied any supply shortage and
accelerated the rise in wheat
prices.
Twice in this time frame,
Russian military aggres-
sion against Ukraine directly
caused world wheat prices
to spike sharply higher. The
world is reeling viscerally
and economically from the
shock of that situation right
now.
Rampant uncertainty
The COVID-19 pandemic
lifted the tide of global infla-
tion by disrupting global sup-
ply chains. Now, Russia’s
war on Ukraine has blocked
nearly 30% of the expected
wheat export supply from
governments and people
that depend on it the most.
Uncertainty runs rampant.
And it is almost impossible
to know how this war will be
prosecuted. How long it will
persist? What will the phys-
ical and economic situation
of Ukraine and Russia be at
the end?
Market analysts every-
where are trying to assess
the many implications of this
latest Russian intervention.
Who will be most severely
impacted? What will be the
magnitude of the shortage
created in the global wheat
supply chain? And how will
the world’s remaining sup-
plies be apportioned, priced
and relocated to the most
severely affected countries?
Extreme volatility
The extreme wheat price
volatility seen in the past
two weeks sits witness to
this uncertainty.
Such high prices and
volatility create challenges
for the world’s wheat buy-
ers and farmers and grain
traders, who must also use
the futures market to man-
age price risk. It is import-
ant to note that the U.S.
wheat market remains fully
open to importers and users
everywhere. Dependable
U.S. wheat producers and
our reliable export sys-
tem stand in the gap. They
are ready and able to sup-
ply wheat as broadly to the
world as our own supplies
and logistical capacity can
accommodate.
Supplies available
In addition to the wheat
price inflation attributed to
Russian intervention, U.S.
wheat prices reflect that last
year’s drought in the North-
ern Plains and Pacific North-
west limited current U.S.
supplies.
However, this year’s orig-
inal export expectations and
calculations do not include
all U.S. supplies available.
And wheat farmers will har-
vest a new crop starting in
June.
U.S. Wheat Associates
(USW) also creates addi-
tional value for U.S. wheat
through the services it offers
its customers. As they nav-
igate this extreme mar-
ket situation to secure the
wheat necessary to feed
people worldwide, USW
remains ready to provide
any information, tools and
assistance within our means
that may be helpful.
Vince Peterson is presi-
dent of U.S. Wheat Associ-
ates, the marketing arm of
the nation’s wheat industry.
out-of-state activities, directly regu-
lates transactions that are conducted
entirely out of state, substantially
impedes the flow of interstate com-
merce, or interferes with a national
regime, a plaintiff’s complaint is
unlikely to survive a motion to dis-
miss,” the 9th Circuit said.
Prop 12’s impacts on interstate
commerce are anything but incidental.
While it does not claim interstate reg-
ulatory powers outright, enforcement
of the act all but ensures that Califor-
nia regulators will impose their stan-
dard on producers and on buyers in
other states.
California imports more than 99%
of its pork, its state agriculture offi-
cials must be provided access to out-
of-state hog farms to enforce the
restrictions and shipping documents
must identify whether the meat can be
sold in that state.
Meatpacking is a wholesale busi-
ness done on volume. Hogs from
many farms go in one end and come
out as bacon, ham, chops and other
cuts destined for consumption all
across the country. Neither the pro-
duction nor processing allows for the
segregation of meat to be shipped
to California to ensure it meets the
standard.
Backers of Prop 12 knew that from
the beginning, and banked on the fact
that California’s outsized market influ-
ence would force producers and pro-
cessors to meet the standard without
having to mount expensive and polit-
ically difficult legislative efforts in
Midwestern states.
We do not dispute California’s
authority to regulate livestock pro-
duction within its borders. But what
if Texas, Florida or any of the other
49 states pass equally strict rules that
are at odds with those outlined in Prop
12? How could a national food sys-
tem function with 50 different sets of
rules?
California voters are free to call
the tune for California producers, but
Midwestern farmers shouldn’t have to
dance or pay the fiddler.
State management
of wolves successful
in Idaho, Montana
I
daho and Montana’s
successful recov-
ery of the gray wolf
was a significant achieve-
ment in species conserva-
tion. In less than 10 years,
not only were biological
recovery targets for gray
wolves met, they were
exceeded.
Unfortunately, delist-
ing of the wolf has been
mired in politics rather
than informed by science.
Last month, Interior Secre-
tary Deb Haaland authored
an editorial, devoid of
facts but flush with alarm-
ist rhetoric, perpetuat-
ing the false narrative that
Idaho and Montana’s wild-
life management policies
are driving gray wolves to
extinction. What’s more,
the Secretary disregarded
both the spirit and proce-
dure of the Endangered
Species Act by explic-
itly threatening emer-
gency listing. The Secre-
tary’s editorial demands a
response.
Gray wolves were
brought to the North-
ern Rockies in 1995, and
by the mid-2000s, their
rapid population growth
had far outpaced expecta-
tions. With the gray wolf
fully recovered, Idaho
and Montana resumed
state wildlife management
authority in 2011. How-
ever, three scenarios are
written into the states’
post-recovery plans out-
lining the conditions that
could lead to a species
status review:
One: If wolf popu-
lations in the North-
ern Rockies Manage-
ment Unit fall below 100
wolves during one year.
Both states far surpassed
this number with an esti-
mated 1,177 wolves in
GUEST
VIEW
U.S. Sen.
Jim Risch
U.S. Sen.
Steve
Daines
Montana and 1,543 in
Idaho last year.
Two: If wolf popu-
lations in either state
fall below 150 wolves
for three consecutive
years. Gray wolf popu-
lations have consistently
remained above 1,000
wolves for over 10 con-
secutive years in Montana.
Similarly, Idaho’s wolf
populations have signifi-
cantly exceeded the tar-
get number for more than
20 years, remaining above
1,500 in the last three con-
secutive years.
Three: If a state law
or management objective
makes changes that sig-
nificantly increases the
threat to the wolf pop-
ulation. Idaho expanded
hunting licenses in 2021,
not to endanger wolf pop-
ulations but to reduce
their growing threat to the
ecosystem. The Fish and
Wildlife Service’s 2009
delisting rule warned that
a Northern Rockies popu-
lation above 1,500 wolves,
which Idaho alone cur-
rently exceeds, would
result in eventual habitat
degradation.
Like Idaho, Mon-
tana adopted new hunt-
ing regulations this year.
This plan was adjust-
able — allowing the state
Commission to respond
to changing conditions
mid-season — and main-
tained science-based quo-
tas, which even if fully
met, assured wolf popula-
tions were maintained at a
level nearly five times the
recovery threshold. Mon-
tana’s wolf season con-
cluded last week and the
total harvest was on par
with past seasons and
actually less than the pre-
vious four years.
The Secretary wrote
that “we must find solu-
tions that allow wolves to
flourish.” We agree, and
are proud that Idaho and
Montana succeeded in
doing just that. If the gray
wolf doesn’t meet the cri-
teria for a status review,
it certainly does not meet
the criteria for an emer-
gency listing. Those push-
ing for such action are
relying on emotional
appeals, red herrings, and
fear tactics — not science
or the law.
If the Secretary is seri-
ous about following the
science and the law and
recognizing “decades of
hard work by states,” the
Secretary must promote,
rather than disparage,
state management author-
ity. She must acknowl-
edge Idaho and Montana
have demonstrated a per-
tinent ability to sustain a
healthy wolf population
for over a decade. This is
the true mark of success
for species recovery, and
we cannot afford for Sec-
retary Haaland to under-
mine this legacy for polit-
ical, partisan gain.
Jim Risch represents
Idaho and Steve Daines
represents Montana in
the U.S. Senate. Both are
Republicans.
READERS’ VIEW
Private Forest
Accord a taking
This letter is written by a third
generation rancher and forest man-
ager who owns and operates an
Oregon Century Ranch business.
I have seen more lean years than
better years, but I enjoy the life-
style and working the land.
This 2022 Legislative Short
Session made me angry with
the passage of the Private Forest
Accord (PFA) legislation (SB 1501
and SB 1502). As a small forestry
owner, the PFA legislation TAKES
the use of over 14% of my timber
production without compensation!
The small forest owner “tax credit”
is minimal and comes with an irre-
vocable deed restriction.
We have only logged 120 acres
of our timberland, which is cov-
ered with all ages of trees. During
our lifetime, we have planted over
143,000 Douglas fir seedlings.
Our timber property is well man-
aged, has good roads and it is well
stocked with trees and grass. I can-
not understand why politicians, big
timber, and ENGOs (environmen-
tal non-governmental organiza-
tions) think they know how to best
manage my property.
I understand the corporate tim-
ber companies supported the Pri-
vate Forest Accord in lieu of “law-
suits by environmentalists.” Where
is the signed, written commitment
from the environmentalists that
they will not sue for “50” years
and not propose more regulation
for forestry?
The buffers are supposed to
help bring back fish. I believe
if you want to increase num-
bers of fish, you need to control
the predators. The obvious solu-
tion is to stop harming and kill-
ing the endangered fish yet people
can buy licenses and tags so they
can “take” those endangered fish.
There needs to be an increase in
fish hatchery programs. I protect
endangered fish on our property by
not allowing people to cross my
property to fish the streams.
The government is literally
TAKING my trees and property
use and it is the last straw. I have
done my share for the benefit of
fish and wildlife and the accord
wants more. Why don’t you, sup-
porters of SB 1501 and SB 1502,
do something to directly increase
fish population rather than TAK-
ING my land.
Charlie Waterman
Bandon, Ore.