6
CapitalPress.com
Editorials are written by or
approved by members of the
Capital Press Editorial Board.
Friday, June 3, 2022
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
People are people, animals are animals
I
n Japan is a man named Toko. He likes
to pretend he is a dog. To do that he
spent $15,700 on a dog suit fashioned
after a collie. When he is in the suit, he
looks a lot like a collie. He also acts like
one, rolling over and doing collie things.
But if you ask a human, he is no dog.
And other dogs certainly know a dog
when they see one.
He is just a guy in a dog suit, and a very
expensive one at that.
Some animal rights groups occasion-
ally cook up public relations stunts argu-
ing that animals have constitutional rights.
This would come as a surprise to any-
one who has ever read the Constitution, or
who has been around animals.
For example, 11 years ago, People
for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or
PETA, filed suit arguing that Sea World,
an aquarium, was depriving orcas of their
constitutional rights and “enslaving” them.
If a group wanted to help orcas, it could
argue that they should have more room at
Oregon Zoo
Elephants dine on giant pumpkins at
the Oregon Zoo in Portland. An activist
group in New York has sued on behalf of
an elephant, arguing it is a person.
the aquarium or be better treated. That’s
fine. We are in favor of free speech.
But an orca is not, under any circum-
stance, a person who has constitutional
rights. It must be embarrassing for a mem-
ber of the bar to try to argue that with a
straight face.
Other groups have taken up the cause
of a chimpanzee in upstate New York,
arguing that it should be granted the abil-
ity to chose where it wants to live.
Most recently, the Nonhuman Rights
Project has gone to court on behalf of
Happy, an elephant at the Bronx Zoo
in New York. The group filed a writ of
habeas corpus in the state’s Supreme
Court, seeking to have Happy recognized
as a person and moved from the zoo.
If the group wanted to help, it could
make sure all applicable humane laws are
followed. It could even buy Happy and
move her to better circumstances. But that
would solve a problem, not make a splash
in the news, which is apparently what the
group seeks most.
This legal wrangling has farmers and
ranchers concerned. They worry that if
an outside group can demand that an ani-
mal be treated as a human under the law,
similar cases might be made on behalf
of cows, hogs, chickens and other farm
animals.
This has nothing to do with elephants
or orcas, or any other animals, for that
matter. This is just another public relations
stunt aimed at raising money for another
animal rights group.
The Associated Press talked to a law
professor at Rutgers University about the
case involving Happy.
“I’ve been a vegan for 40 years. Don’t
get me wrong, I disagree with animal use
altogether,” Gary Francione, the professor,
said. “Just to have the court start saying
that non-human animals are persons under
the law is going to raise all sorts of ques-
tions, the answers to which are not going
to be amenable to many people.”
We’ll finish that thought: A man in a
dog suit may look and act like a dog, but
he’s no dog. And an animal rights group
can argue that an elephant is a person, but
that doesn’t make it true.
It’s not a matter of constitutional rights,
it’s a matter of biology.
China IS a
EPA needs to Legislation
would handcuff threat to
bring more
ag
innovation
our
national
farmers to table
food security
F
R
C
ecently, the Environ-
mental Protection
Agency held its first
stakeholder roundtable on its
new Waters of the U.S. rule,
and I sure hope it wasn’t a
sample of what’s to come.
The group lacked diversity of
experience in agriculture, and
few of the participants had
any direct experience with the
quagmire of Clean Water Act
regulation. This was a missed
opportunity for EPA, and we
are urging them to seek out
and listen to all viewpoints.
You have often heard me
talk about the importance of
agriculture having a seat at
the table, and the administra-
tion has agreed that the farm-
er’s voice is critical to this
rulemaking process. But sim-
ply checking a box without
hearing from farmers who can
speak from experience will
not do.
Water is the lifeblood
of agriculture, and farmers
across the country are tak-
ing proactive steps to pro-
tect water on and around our
farms.
We have been straightfor-
ward and consistent in our
call for clear rules because
we know how important it is
to get regulations right, espe-
cially ones that impact the
lives and livelihoods of so
many. All farmers should be
able to look out on their land
and know what’s regulated,
so we can continue to protect
our natural resources while
growing a sustainable food
supply.
EPA’s proposed WOTUS
rule instead casts uncertainty
over farmers and ranchers
across the country and threat-
ens the progress we have
made to responsibly manage
water and natural resources.
Let’s recap how the pro-
posed rule reaches beyond
the protection of shared, nav-
igable waters.
It would give the fed-
eral government the abil-
ity to regulate areas such as
ditches, ephemeral drain-
ages, or low spots on farm-
lands and pastures that are
not even wet most of the year
and that do not connect to
flowing waterways.
This would subject ordi-
nary farming activities to
complex and burdensome
regulations. Simple activi-
ties like moving dirt, plow-
ing or building fences would
require permits, and get-
ting a federal permit can
take months or even years
and cost tens or hundreds of
thousands of dollars.
A farmer shouldn’t need a
GUEST
VIEW
Zippy
Duvall
team of lawyers to grow
crops and raise animals,
but these unclear and over-
broad regulations could lead
to large civil fines as well as
criminal charges.
Farmers, ranchers and all
landowners deserve clear
rules and a system that
respects voluntary conser-
vation efforts. Practices like
no till and conservation till-
age that reduce soil erosion
and keep nutrients in the soil
are becoming common prac-
tice, now being used on more
than half of the corn, cotton,
soybean and wheat planted
across the nation. That’s
more than 200 million acres.
The use of cover crops—
another important tool in
protecting water and promot-
ing soil health—also con-
tinues to grow, increasing
50% between 2012 and 2017,
according to the last USDA
Census of Agriculture. And
farmers use several other
tools and techniques to pro-
tect waterways and reduce
runoff, such as buffer strips,
protective zones between
fields and waterways; strip
cropping, growing alternat-
ing strips of erosion-resistant
crops; and terraces, using
slopes to help filter water
and reduce erosion. We will
continue to hold the admin-
istration to their commitment
to bring farmers to the table
and to treat us as partners in
our sustainability efforts.
It is no secret that Farm
Bureau was extremely dis-
appointed in EPA’s decision
to repeal the 2020 Naviga-
ble Waters Protection Rule,
which brought much needed
clarity to farmers.
But if the EPA is going
to continue forward, they
must ensure that the pro-
cess truly offers the opportu-
nity for meaningful engage-
ment and feedback from all
stakeholders.
Future roundtables must
present the perspective of
active farmers and be better
organized and managed. Oth-
erwise, EPA is doing noth-
ing more than muddying the
waters in this rulemaking.
Vincent “Zippy” Duvall, a
poultry, cattle and hay pro-
ducer from Greene County,
Georgia, is the 12th president
of the American Farm Bureau
Federation.
armers have
always played
GUEST
an essential
VIEW
role to the economic
vitality of Amer-
Doug
ica. They are a crit-
Kelly
ical part of a sup-
ply chain that keeps food on the table in homes,
schools, hospitals, military installations and
more.
In today’s world, farmers are facing increasing
demand due to the world’s growing population in
tandem with unprecedented environmental pres-
sures, pushing the industry to rapidly evolve.
Thankfully, technological innovation is
already helping them do so. Technology has ele-
vated farming to a science informed by reams of
granular data that drive more accurate decision
making in real time.
Farmers can now use GPS, artificial intelli-
gence, machine learning and more to advance
resiliency and higher crop yields.
We’ve seen firsthand the benefits of technol-
ogy and innovation in agriculture as our farm-
ers are some of the most productive in the world
today.
Unfortunately, some members of Congress
currently support anti-innovation legislation that
could handcuff the companies that drive this
technology, causing the innovations our farmers
rely on to wither on the vine.
This regressive legislation comes at a critical
time when we must ensure farmers have the tech-
nology and resources needed to keep our nation’s
food supply flowing. Global trends in population
growth show that by 2050, the world’s popula-
tion will increase by 2.2 billion to 10 billion peo-
ple. Farmers will need to grow about 70% more
food than what is now produced in order to keep
up with this trend.
At the same time, climate change and other
environmental issues are resulting in a vicious
combination of resource scarcity, harvest loss
and soil degradation. Farmers will need to meet
these growing demands with fewer resources
and with less impact on a shrinking land base.
Making that happen will require using natural
resources more efficiently and sustainably rela-
tive to every single acre.
The only way farmers can keep up this new
paradigm and maximize crop yields is through
smart farming enabled by technology. Chemis-
try, biology, biotechnology, data source platforms
and new business models enabled by technology
allow for integrated, tailored and more sustain-
able solutions.
Ongoing innovation in the industry and ensur-
ing widespread internet connectivity with and
across farms is not only important, but necessary
for the future of our food supply.
As lawmakers in Washington consider how to
respond to the continuing evolution and growth
of the tech sector and intensifying competition
over the internet, supporting farm technology
must be a top priority.
We need policies that continue to drive farm
tech forward and foster groundbreaking agricul-
tural practices. Ignoring our farmers’ needs will
not only mean dire consequences for the indus-
try, but for all of us depending on them to put
food on the table.
Doug Kelly, of Columbus, Ohio, serves as
the chief executive officer of the American Edge
Project, a coalition dedicated to the proposition
that American innovators are an essential part of
U.S. economic health, national security and indi-
vidual freedoms. Kelly is committed to protecting
America’s tech innovation. He understands that
America’s most innovative companies help drive
our economy, protect our national security and
promote free-speech values abroad.
hina has
been buying
GUEST
up American
VIEW
farmland, and, for
some reason, peo-
Rep. Dan
ple aren’t worried
Newhouse
about it.
Maybe they’re unaware that China’s Ameri-
can agricultural land holdings have increased over
tenfold in the last decade. Maybe they’re unaware
that at the beginning of 2020, investments from
China held $2 billion of American agricultural
land. Maybe they’re unaware that 2021 was the
10th straight year America’s trade deficit with
the Chinese eclipsed $300 billion. Maybe they’re
unaware that China owns 50% of the global
reserves of corn.
But I’m not.
China is slowly, but surely, acquiring more land
and resources outside their own borders, and right
now they’re targeting America. I want to be very
clear: this is not something to take lightly.
The Chinese Communist Party and the Gov-
ernment of the People’s Republic of China
are not our allies. China is controlled by an
unforgiving communist regime that represses
domestic opposition and undermines Ameri-
can interests. And for years, the United States’
dependence on China has harbored a rising
threat to our national security.
After decades of well-known wrongdo-
ings, human rights violations, and manipulation
of American intellectual property, it is time to get
serious about reducing our dependence on China
and its role in our nation’s supply chains — the
U.S. cannot become dependent on China for our
domestic agriculture and food supply.
We hail from the greatest country in the world,
and there is simply no reason we should be reliant
on a communist country like China. If we begin
to cede the responsibility over our food supply
chain to an adversarial foreign nation, we could
be forced into exporting food that is grown within
our own borders and meant for our own use.
Conversely, by bolstering American agricul-
ture, we can create jobs, strengthen our economy,
and enhance our national supply chain into the
future.
Simply put, we should be taking every action
we can to strengthen our domestic production
while preventing our adversaries from gaining a
foothold in our supply chain, and I am proud to be
leading that charge in Congress.
Last Friday, I introduced legislation that would
prohibit the purchase of public or private agricul-
tural land in the United States by foreign nationals
associated with the Government of the People’s
Republic of China.
Additionally, the legislation would prohibit the
same associations from participating in any United
States Department of Agriculture programs except
food safety inspections.
China is many things, but an ally to the U.S. it
is not. The Chinese Communist Party is a national
security threat that seeks to rebuild the world order
in its image. We must stop pretending China is an
ally, and instead recognize it for the adversary that
it is. I will continue to stand up to China and all of
our foreign adversaries on behalf of the people of
Central Washington and the United States.
We know that a disruption of the global supply
chain for any reason has long-lasting and broad-
ly-felt impacts, and food security is national secu-
rity. So, when China is buying up American agri-
cultural assets, yes, you should be worried.
Dan Newhouse, a Republican, represents
Central Washington in the U.S. House of
Representatives.