OPINION
6A
THE DAILY ASTORIAN • MONDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2016
Founded in 1873
DAVID F. PERO, Publisher & Editor
LAURA SELLERS, Managing Editor
BETTY SMITH, Advertising Manager
CARL EARL, Systems Manager
JOHN D. BRUIJN, Production Manager
DEBRA BLOOM, Business Manager
HEATHER RAMSDELL, Circulation Manager
OUR VIEW
ODFW needs
consistent
state funding
hanges in social behavior and public financing will
increasingly affect how we fund the Oregon Department
of Fish and Wildlife, and whether some of the Pacific
Northwest’s outdoor traditions are able to continue.
Our Capital Bureau reported Tuesday that a task force
charged with finding sustainable funding for ODFW is consid-
ering holding off on scheduled license fee increases. It wants to
see if the Legislature approves either an income tax surcharge
or a surcharge on beverage containers to fund the department.
About a third of the agency’s budget — roughly $60 million
a year — is generated by selling hunting and fishing licenses.
State and federal funds account for two-thirds.
Like many other states, Oregon has experienced a gradual
but inexorable decline in the number of people still interested in
harvesting their own wild fish and game. And like other states,
Oregon has partially offset this decline in participation by rais-
ing license fees on those who remain. This results in a cycle
of less financially advantaged residents being squeezed out of
hunting and fishing, along with those whose who have only
marginal enthusiasm for rod and gun sports.
As much or perhaps more than other recreational activities,
interest in hunting and fishing typically is established in child-
hood or not at all. Fish and Wildlife and its peers around the
nation have taken a variety of steps to encourage parents to
get kids engaged in the outdoors, offering free or discounted
license options, special events and other incentives. But if
parents can’t afford to go hunting or fishing themselves, it’s
unlikely their children will.
This leads to the kinds of internal struggles evidenced by
the state’s task force, which is reluctantly eying two license
fee increases — one in 2018 and another in 2020, with future
increases indexed to inflation.
These increases come at the same time other hunting and
fishing costs also are on the rise. In addition to the constant
struggle to afford insurance and upkeep on vehicles and vessels,
hunters in particular face steep increases in fees they must pay
for access to many previously free forestlands. Weyerhauser
and other corporations have been aggressively raising access
fees — ostensibly as a way to pay for forest upkeep.
Why should the majority of citizens who neither fish nor
hunt care about any of this? Many who enjoy nature in ways
that do not require licenses — everything from birdwatching
to the satisfaction of knowing wild places exist — individu-
ally pay a few dollars in taxes a year to ODFW operations, as
opposed to $180 for a full combination adult license fee.
Oregon Public Broadcasting reported this week on the dif-
ficulties Fish and wildlife has in funding conservation mea-
sures for nongame species — everything from bats to frogs.
Problems like this will get nothing but worse if hunting and
fishing participation rates and license income continue to
languish.
What can we do? Certainly support legislative efforts to
establish a reliable safety net for ODFW funding. Other volun-
tary options already exist and are fully described athttp://bit.ly/
2f8YQ1Q. One of the easiest is buying $20 habitat conserva-
tion stamps via the internet or at any location that sell fishing
and hunting licenses.
If we care about Oregon wildlife — and surveys show we
strongly do — we have to figure out new ways to pay for the
vital work performed by Fish and Wildlife.
C
Remember to vote
G
eneral elections where we get the chance to choose
between presidential, congressional, statewide and
local candidates, along with statewide and local ballot
initiatives, are a pinnacle of American democracy. Candidates
at all levels express their positions and lobby for our approval,
exhausting themselves by doing everything possible to earn
votes.
Then each of us gets to pick.
Americans go to the polls, or mail in their choices in vote-
by-mail states like Oregon, and on Election Day the results are
tallied and the winners are named. Inevitably, not all the win-
ners will please everybody, but it is all part of democracy, where
we the people have the right to participate. And, as often is the
case in local elections, a single vote can make a big difference in
determining an election outcome.
The time to fill out your ballot is now if you haven’t already,
and take it directly to your neighborhood drop box.
Be part of our democracy and exercise your right: Vote.
The banality of real change
By DAVID BROOKS
New York Times News Service
A
few weeks ago I met a guy
in Idaho who was abso-
lutely certain that Donald
Trump would win this election. He
was wearing tattered, soiled over-
alls, missing a bunch of teeth and
was unnaturally skinny. He was
probably about 50, but his haggard
face looked 70. He was getting
by aimlessly as a
handyman.
I pointed to
the polls and tried
to persuade him
that Hillary Clin-
ton might win, but
it was like telling him a sea gull
could play billiards. Everybody he
knows is voting Trump so his entire
lived experience points to a Trump
landslide. He was a funny, kind
guy, but you got the impression his
opportunities had been narrowed
by forces outside his control.
One of the mandates for the next
president is to help improve the life
stories of people like that.
Trump speaks to this man’s sit-
uation and makes him feel heard.
But when you think practically
about which candidate could
improve his life, it’s clear that Clin-
ton is the bigger change agent.
Meaning of change
Let’s start with what “change”
actually means. In our system,
change means legislation. It starts
with the ability to gather a team of
policy experts who can craft com-
plex bills. These days, bills often
run to thousands of pages, and
every bad rookie decision can lead
things astray.
Then it requires political deft-
ness. Deft politicians are not
always lovely, as Lyndon John-
son demonstrated, but they are sub-
tle, cunning and experienced. They
have the ability to work noncon-
tentiously with people they don’t
like, to read other people’s minds,
to lure opponents over with friend-
ship, cajolery and a respectful
nudge.
Craftsmanship in government
is not like craftsmanship in busi-
ness. You can’t win people with
money and you can’t order peo-
ple around. Governance requires
enormous patience, a capacity to
tolerate boredom and the skill of
quiet herding. Frustrations abound.
When it is done well, as a friend of
mine in government puts it, each
individual day sucks but the over-
all experience is tremendously
rewarding.
Change in government is a team
sport. Public opinion is mobilized
through institutions — through
interest groups, activist organiza-
tions, think tanks and political par-
ties. As historian Sean Wilentz
once put it, “political parties have
been the only reliable electoral
vehicles for advancing the ideas
and interests of ordinary voters.”
To create political change, you
have to work within groups and
organize groups of groups.
Many of us
disagree
strongly with
many Clinton
policies. But
any sensible
person can
distinguish
between an
effective
operating
officer and
a whirling
disaster who
is only about
himself.
Now, if you wanted to design a
personality type perfectly ill suited
to be a change agent in govern-
ment, you would come up with
Donald Trump: solipsistic, impa-
tient, combative, unsubtle and
ignorant.
If you wanted to design a per-
sonality type better suited to get-
ting things done, you might come
up with James Baker, Robert Gates
or Ted Kennedy, but you might also
come up with Hillary Clinton.
No illusions
None of us should be under any
illusions. Wherever Clinton walks,
the whiff of scandal is always by
her side. The Clintons seem to have
decided that they are righteous and
good, and therefore anything that
enriches, empowers or makes them
feel good must always be righteous
and good. They surround them-
selves with some amazing peo-
ple but also some human hand gre-
nades who inevitably blow up in
their faces.
But Clinton does possess the
steady, pedantic skills that are nec-
essary for governmental change:
the ability to work doggedly hard,
to master details and to rally the
powerful. If the Clinton campaign
emails have taught us anything, it
is that she and her team, while not
hugely creative, are prudent, calcu-
lating and able to create a web of
interlocking networks that they can
mobilize for a cause.
Clinton was at her best in the
Senate. She worked very well
with Republicans (and not just the
amenable ones like John McCain
and Lindsey Graham). She was an
operations person, not a public-
ity person. Whereas Barack Obama
sometimes seemed to see his fellow
politicians as objects to be stud-
ied, Clinton got on with them as
an equal. Her accomplishments —
post-9/11 funding for New York,
saving Army bases in upstate New
York — were concrete.
Passing legislation next year is
going to be hard, but if Clinton can
be dull and pragmatic, and operate
at a level below the cable TV ide-
ology wars, it’s possible to imag-
ine her gathering majorities behind
laws that would help people like
that guy in Idaho: an infrastructure
push, criminal justice reform, a col-
lege tuition program, an appren-
ticeship and skills program, an
expanded earned-income tax credit
and a bill to secure the border and
shift from low-skill to high-skill
immigration.
Many of us disagree strongly
with many Clinton policies. But
any sensible person can distinguish
between an effective operating offi-
cer and a whirling disaster who is
only about himself.
The thing about reality TV is
that it isn’t actually real. In the
real world, the process of driving
change is usually boring, remorse-
less and detail oriented, but the
effect on people out there, like the
guy in Idaho, can be profound and
beautiful.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Time for change
hile driving around Clat-
sop County and the southern
reaches of Pacific County, Washing-
ton, I have made an informal sur-
vey of political signs. Oddly enough,
the ratio I come up with is about 20
to 1 in favor of Trump/Pence over
Hillary/Kaine.
In fact, Stein/Baraka of the Green
Party beats Hillary/Kaine 4 to 1. So
why do the media keep predicting
this Clinton/Kaine sweep? Could it
be the corporate media wants a Hil-
lary win? The media bias for Hillary
over Bernie was so obvious to any-
one paying attention, it was madden-
ing that so many were blind to it. The
same thing is obviously playing out
in this race, as well.
The real question for those of
you who haven’t already cast your
vote is: Why do the media continue
to spout the false view that anyone
casting a ballot for a third-party can-
didate is throwing away their vote?
The obvious answer is because Wall
W
Street and the corporate status quo
prefer Clinton over the unpredict-
able wild card, Trump. Just as they
obviously preferred her over Bernie
Sanders.
And they sure as hell do not want
a third party in play to mess with that
two-party status quo. And the naked
truth is that there isn’t enough differ-
ence between either party to make
any real difference in how the major-
ity of us at the lower end of the eco-
nomic spectrum will ever benefit
from one selection over the other.
So if you are as disenchanted
with our faux democracy as I and
tens of millions of others are, and
you have yet to vote, I urge you to
not waste your vote on either of
these two from that limited basket of
deplorables. Exercise your right to
vote for a candidate who reflects val-
ues that you can truly believe in.
I will definitely be going Green.
Care to join me? At the very least,
give a listen to what Jill Stein and
Ajuma Baraka have to offer. Or Liber-
tarian Gary Johnson. Or write in Ber-
nie Sanders. I can’t think of a better
time to make a revolutionary change.
BLAINE VERLEY
Astoria
Brown for Gearhart
att Brown is, by far, the best
choice for Gearhart’s mayor.
Matt is a successful local business-
man, having been born here, edu-
cated here and whose heart is here.
He has the knowledge of Gearhart’s
governmental workings, having
served on and led the city planning
commission for many years.
Matt believes in listening to all
parties, considering all sides and just
resolution of problems. He believes
in the comprehensive plan, supports
its periodic review and enforcement
of its provisions. Matt believes in
being true to Gearhart and keeping
Gearhart, Gearhart.
RICHARD SABOL
Gearhart
M