6
CapitalPress.com
Editorials are written by or
approved by members of the
Capital Press Editorial Board.
Friday, August 26, 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
Regulating that dairy air
F
orgive the inner 12-year-old
in us that can’t help but let out
a sophomoric chuckle each
time we discuss the prospects of
the government regulating dairy air
emissions.
We do not take lightly the pros-
pects of increased regulations and the
impacts they would have on dairy
farm families, including a new pro-
posal targeting Oregon dairies.
A coalition of 22 environmen-
tal, public health and animal welfare
groups has petitioned Oregon regu-
lators to adopt new rules targeting air
pollution from large-scale dairies.
The petition, filed Aug. 17 with the
state Environmental Quality Commis-
sion, seeks to create a dairy air emis-
sions program that would apply to
farms with 700 or more mature cows,
which the federal Environmental Pro-
tection Agency defines as a “large”
operation.
Petitioners want to require pro-
posed and existing dairies to obtain
an air quality permit and curb harm-
Mateusz Perkowski/Capital Press FIle
An Oregon petition seeks to regulate
emissions from dairies with more than
700 mature cows.
ful emissions — including ammonia,
methane, hydrogen sulfide and partic-
ulate matter, among others.
They argue that while the state reg-
ulates manure it ignores potential air
pollutants on dairies.
“For too long, the state has sat idly
by while Oregon mega-dairies have
been spewing toxic pollution into the
air, wreaking havoc on our natural
resources, climate and communities,”
Emily Miller, staff attorney for Food
and Water Watch and the petition’s
lead author. “This head-in-the-sand
approach must change.”
A state-convened Dairy Air Quality
Task Force in 2008 recommended a
dairy air emissions program. In 2017,
legislation designed to enshrine those
recommendations into law failed to
move from committee.
In our experience, the Demo-
crat-controlled legislature has never
been reluctant to regulate agricul-
ture. There must be a reason this idea
hasn’t gained traction in Salem.
Perhaps because it’s not a pressing
need.
Farm interests argue that Oregon
producers have made great strides
voluntarily reducing dairy emissions
since the task force made its recom-
mendations. A whole host of new
technologies and best practices have
improved air quality and reduced
odors associated with big dairies.
They also note that by the Environ-
mental Protection Agency’s measure
the state does not have an air quality
problem.
As is always the case, petitioners
target only “large” dairies with 700 or
more cows to be regulated. These are
the infamous “mega-dairies” and “fac-
tory farms” they demonize in their
advocacy.
In reality, the vast majority of these
“large” dairies are family-owned and
-operated farms. The economics of the
dairy businesses make it difficult to
make a living with a small herd.
“You cannot support a family on
a couple hundred milk cows,” Mary
Anne Cooper, vice president of public
policy for the Oregon Farm Bureau,
said. “Their costs already exceed what
they’re getting on the market for their
product.”
It wouldn’t take long for smaller
dairies to be swept up in a state reg-
ulatory scheme, because these things
rarely stay blind to scale.
The other economic reality is that
the more regulations you heap on the
dairy industry, the larger the farms
will get. Only the very large can afford
to meet expensive requirements.
All joking about the double enten-
dre aside, everyone should be wary
of this effort to regulate dairy air
emissions.
Our View
READERS’ VIEW
Some thoughts
on ‘woke’
insects
Wokeism has made
another correction in
perception.
The title “Murder Hor-
net” is not only insen-
sitive but “evokes fear
and discrimination.”
It’s unclear whether the
hornet or its victims
are suffering from this
oversight.
The title “Ladybug” is
also problematic. It does
not consider gender nor
sexual orientation. It’s a
noun when it should be a
pronoun — he, she or it
— or something else to
be determined that’s more
sensitive.
Michael F. Hanley IV
Jordan Valley, Ore.
Capital Press File
Beef cattle graze in Oregon. A proposal to “rewild” parts of the West would halt grazing on some federal allotments.
‘Rewilding’ the already wild West
I
n case you haven’t heard, the West
needs to be “rewilded.”
That means more wolves and bea-
vers and no cattle on about 110,000
square miles of federal land, includ-
ing many grazing allotments, across 11
states.
First, let’s think about the West, which
is as wild as any place in the nation. One
only needs to take a look at Yellowstone,
Yosemite, Glacier and Olympic and doz-
ens of other national parks in the region.
Add the many wilderness areas, pre-
serves and open spaces and you’ll see
what we mean.
Beyond that, wild areas exist in every
western state. One does not need the fed-
eral government to define where wilder-
ness is.
But 20 academics and environmental-
ists claim in a recent viewpoint published
in BioScience, a journal of the American
Institute of Biological Sciences, that the
West needs to be “rewilded.”
Their proposal, dubbed the “Western
Wilding Network,” is to return those 11
parcels of land to nature. They want to do
it by banning cattle and sheep grazing —
and any other activities, including mining
and oil drilling — from those areas.
As evidence of the need to evict cattle
from the selected allotments, they dipped
into their collection of decades-old pho-
tos showing the problems poorly man-
aged grazing can cause.
Those photos are compared to newer
photos that show what wolves and bea-
vers have done over a couple decades
after the cattle left.
One wonders what would have hap-
pened if modern grazing management
had been tried first.
Such is the nature of the arguments
offered in this proposal, which could
most generously be described as a think
piece.
The authors appear to have started
with a conclusion in mind and built their
case from there.
For example, they argue that wolves
and beavers are good and cattle and
sheep are bad. They ignore the prob-
lems wolves and beavers can cause and
the benefits cattle and sheep provide.
This includes reducing fuels that feed
wildfires.
As part of their plan, the authors say
ranchers who lose their allotments would
be paid — presumable a lot, because
many operations depend on allotments to
remain viable.
But no mention is made of the other
ranchers who would be left. When the
wolves start wondering across the coun-
tryside — and they will — their live-
stock will be at risk. Around the West,
we’ve seen that wolves can cause serious,
chronic problems for livestock producers.
Then there’s the matter of food, which
neither wolves nor beavers provide.
Cattle and sheep graze on allotments,
most of which are ill-suited for growing
crops and have limited water supplies.
The fact that they can graze those land-
scapes and produce high-quality protein
to feed people in the U.S. and around the
world is a benefit to all.
Much is made about cattle’s alleged
contribution to climate change. True
enough, cattle produce methane, a green-
house gas. But methane breaks down
over about 10 years. That means the
amount of methane produced by cattle
stays the same because the population of
cattle stays the same, according to Frank
Mitloehner of the University of Califor-
nia-Davis, an expert on the relationship
between livestock and air quality.
The authors are pitching their Western
Rewilding Network as a “bold, scientifi-
cally grounded organizing principle” for
President Biden’s “30 by 30” proposal to
conserve 30% of federal land and water
by 2030. Biden’s plan has no apparent
scientific basis other than it sounds good.
The Western Rewilding Network, with
its many shortcomings, doesn’t appear to
make up for that.
Please protect
our planet
Two headline arti-
cles in the Capital Press
recently seriously oppose
preservation of Planet
Earth.
First, overfeeding of
birds (with sunflower
seeds), which will lead to
crowding and disease.
Then, congratulating
wheat grower Michelle
Hennings on racing her
truck, causing consider-
able air pollution.
Currently, we need
spaced wildlife species
and the cleanest air possi-
ble to allow plants to sur-
vive climate stresses.
Please decide to pro-
mote planet protection.
Vivian Thompson
Morro Bay, Calif.
LETTERS POLICY
Write to us: Capital Press wel-
comes letters to the editor on
issues of interest to farmers,
ranchers and the agribusiness
community.
Letters policy: Please limit let-
ters to 300 words and include
your home address and a
daytime telephone number
with your submission. Longer
pieces, 500-750 words, may
be considered as guest com-
mentary pieces for use on the
opinion pages. Guest commen-
tary submissions should also
include a photograph of the
author.
Send letters via email to
opinions@capitalpress.com.
Emailed letters are preferred
and require less time to pro-
cess, which could result in
quicker publication. Letters
also may be sent to P.O. Box
2048, Salem, OR 97308.