6
CapitalPress.com
Editorials are written by or
approved by members of the
Capital Press Editorial Board.
Friday, July 15, 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
Even bureaucrats find regulation burdensome
W
hen the governed fail
to meet deadlines set
by federal statutes and
regulations, agencies typically can
impose fines amounting to $37,500
a day to force miscreants to comply.
But what happens when bureau-
crats fail to meet deadlines set by
law? Citizens must resort to costly
and time-consuming litigation.
That’s the case with the West-
ern Resources Legal Center, which
has been waiting months for the U.S.
Forest Service and the Bureau of
Land Management to respond to its
requests for records related to their
analyses of the River Democracy
Act.
Nearly 4,700 miles of rivers and
streams in Oregon would be desig-
nated as “wild and scenic” under the
bill, which critics fear would restrict
logging and grazing, among other
activities.
The legislation was introduced by
Oregon Sens. Ron Wyden and Jeff
Merkley, who claim the bill would
shield property rights from adverse
effects while tripling the number of
river miles with “wild and scenic”
Nick Smith/AFRC
Bear Gulch in Southern Oregon was
nominated as a Wild and Scenic River
under the River Democracy Act intro-
duced by Oregon Sens. Ron Wyden and
Jeff Merkley.
protections in the state.
Federal land managers testified
about the bill before a congressio-
nal subcommittee last year. West-
ern Resources Legal Center, located
at Lewis and Clark Law School, says
that indicates government officials
have an “enhanced understanding
of the process, basis, and potential
impacts” of adding waterways to the
Wild and Scenic River System.
In late October and early Novem-
ber of 2021, the center submitted
Freedom of Information Act requests
for records pertaining to the River
Democracy Act, including congres-
sional communications related to the
hearing.
The Freedom of Information Act
requires agencies to make a determi-
nation as to whether records can be
released and respond within 20 work-
ing days. If records can be released,
agencies are required to provide an
estimated date the records will be
released.
Agencies are required to ful-
fill requests for nonexempt records
“promptly,” a word that has come
to be interpreted loosely by federal
bureaucrats.
No determinations regarding the
FOIA requests have yet been made
by the Forest Service, the Bureau of
Land Management or their govern-
ment overseers — the USDA and
Interior Department.
The center’s only alternative was
to file a lawsuit seeking to compel
the agencies to produce the requested
documents. In light of the “months-
long delay” and “lack of commu-
nication,” the plaintiff believes the
government “seeks to hide records
from the public” regarding its inter-
pretation of the bill, according to the
lawsuit.
It’s easy to see why someone
whose request for information has
gone without reports might believe
nefarious motives. It’s not hard to
imagine Washington mandarins
slow-walking a records request to
delay the release of inconvenient
insights.
Agencies find the requirements of
the act to be burdensome.
Since its passage in 1967, requests
for information under the Freedom
of Information Act have climbed
exponentially. Either by design or
incompetence, Congress and the
agencies have short-changed the
departments charged with comply-
ing with requests. As a result, the
time required to respond to requests
and copy and ship documents has
increased.
In short, bureaucrats say they don’t
have the staff or the money to meet
the deadlines set by the statute. It’s
too hard to comply with the law.
The next time a federal regulator
comes to call, try using that excuse.
Law for thee, but not for me.
Some consumers are
being misled by milk
prices in stores
Our View
R
Sierra Dawn McClain/Capital Press
New Zealand is considering a tax on cow and sheep burps as a way to slow climate change.
The taxman arrives
on the farm
G
eorge Harrison, a member of the Beatles, a
popular music group some years ago, once
wrote a song that will resonate with many
farmers around the world even today.
Titled “Taxman,” the song’s lyrics iterate the
ever-growing hunger government has for money.
“If you drive a car, I’ll tax the street. ... If you take a
walk, I’ll tax your feet,” the lyrics say.
In his worst nightmares, however, Harrison would
have never come up with the tax now under consider-
ation in New Zealand. It would force farmers to pay the
government when a cow or sheep burps.
We’re not making this up.
New Zealand’s leaders have a well-deserved reputa-
tion for having never met a tax they didn’t like.
This one, however, is over the top. The theory is that
farmers will reduce the number of cattle and sheep they
raise if they have to pony up for their burps, which are
mainly methane. This in some small way would impact
climate change, the government postulates.
The problem is, they’re wrong. Frank Mitloehner,
an expert in animal science at the University of Cali-
fornia-Davis, says the amount of methane in the atmo-
sphere is steady over time because the livestock popula-
tion stays the same. Methane has a lifespan of about 10
years.
“What this means is, if a country like Ireland, New
Zealand or the United States keeps their livestock herds
steady, then they keep their methane steady. If they keep
their methane steady, then they are not increasing global
warming,” he said in an interview on alltech.com. He
said the key is efficiency in the production of food, and
what the animal eats. For example, a grain-finished
steer goes to slaughter at 14 to 18 months. A grass-fed
steer is slaughtered at 26 to 30 months.
“...That means that, if an animal lives almost twice as
long, then it will have much more time to produce envi-
ronmental impacts,” he said.
What New Zealand — and other nations — need to
do is promote efficiency in livestock production, not
add to the tax burden.
Ironically, New Zealand is already at or near the bot-
tom of the list of those nations impacting the climate.
For example, the overall carbon dioxide output for its
5.1 million citizens is something less than 1% of the
world total, according to the Union of Concerned Sci-
entists. For the sake of comparison, China emits 29% of
the carbon dioxide and the U.S. emits 14%.
With their new “climate” tax, the folks in New Zea-
land have only come up with a tax on food and clothes.
It will cause New Zealanders to pay more for meat,
milk — and even for their sweaters. It won’t impact cli-
mate change significantly.
The other problem with simplistic taxes on burps is
they don’t look at the whole picture. They don’t include
the value of that livestock. For example, the fact that
billions of people survive by eating meat and drinking
milk is often left out of the calculus of climate change.
So too is the fact that livestock such as sheep and cat-
tle produce high-quality protein from low-quality land,
much of which could not support food crops.
Sure enough, animals burp and produce methane.
But they also help feed 8 billion people on the planet,
sustaining civilization. That has value, but in New Zea-
land it doesn’t count.
ecently on a trip to central New York
state, I stopped at a large supermarket
to observe their milk prices. One more
time, I was aston-
ished to see that
GUEST
the store-brand
milk was selling
VIEW
Arden
for $3.32 per gal-
lon (whole milk).
Tewksbury
However, right
beside the store
brand was a dif-
ferent brand’s gallons of milk selling for $5.54
a gallon.
A store worker nudged me and said, “Sir,
both you and I know the two different gallons
of milk came from the same source.”
This is the same situation that had been
going on between consumer prices in this par-
ticular area.
You must understand Pennsylvania has a
minimum price that milk can be sold for, and
that price is $4.76 per gallon. In northeastern
Pennsylvania, the red cap whole milk is selling
for $4.85 per gallon in many stores. These are
June 2022 prices.
It is no wonder that when some Pennsylva-
nia consumers shop in New York state, they
ask why is New York milk selling for less than
Pennsylvania’s milk? The milk sold in Penn-
sylvania is the same price in most of the stores.
The difference in New York state is that some
stores evidently are selling their milk as a loss
leader. That means it is sold below cost.
Remember that in New York state when a
selling price is $3.32 per gallon they are mis-
leading consumers.
Will consumers question the worthiness of
whole milk at $3.32? And on the other side
they are gouging consumers on the $5.54 price.
In addition, please remember Pennsylva-
nia and its $4.85 price. This price contains an 8
cent premium per gallon that goes to qualified
dairy farmers.
So what’s the answer? Maybe because
there’s so much milk that travels between New
York and Pennsylvania that it’s time for New
York state to implement a minimum price for a
gallon of milk like Pennsylvania has.
Let’s stop confusing consumers on the low
price while gouging consumers with a high
price.
The fact is that the pricing formula that is
used by the USDA does not take into consid-
eration the cost of producing milk at the farm
level. Please believe this!
Remember the milk dealers in Pennsyl-
vania could sell the red cap milk at a higher
price. Evidently, they don’t believe in gouging
consumers.
There are also some important bills in Penn-
sylvania and New York legislatures that would
allow whole milk back in our schools.
Also, please remember that U.S. Rep. GT
Thompson has a bill that, if passed, would
allow the option of serving whole milk in
schools.
Let’s stop fiddling around and get these bills
passed. Let’s get the “chalk” milk out of our
schools and hospitals and replace it with good,
wholesome, nutritious whole milk.
When whole milk was thrown out of our
schools, I immediately put out the alarm about
the need to get whole milk back in our schools.
Arden Tewksbury is the manager of Pro-Ag.
He can be reached at 570-833-5776.