Page 4A
OPINION
East Oregonian
Tuesday, October 13, 2015
Founded October 16, 1875
KATHRYN B. BROWN
Publisher
JENNINE PERKINSON
Advertising Director
DANIEL WATTENBURGER
Managing Editor
TIM TRAINOR
Opinion Page Editor
OUR VIEW
‘Wolf-friendly beef’
concept patronizing
to ranchers
Everyone knows the feeling of
“wolf-friendly” beef. The bene¿ts
saying something that sounded
from such measures go exclusively
better in their head than it did when
to the wolves and their champions.
they said it out loud.
Ranchers are quick to point
That’s what we thought when
out that to recoup the cost of the
we heard that conservation groups
suggested counter-measures,
in Washington participating on the
“wolf-friendly” products would
state’s wolf advisory panel suggested have to be priced 50 percent more
helping ranchers by creating a
than comparable conventional (wolf
premium label for “wolf-friendly
hostile?) products.
beef” for producers who employ
We’ll give the wolf advocates
Washington Department of Fish
the bene¿t of the doubt that they are
and Wildlife
sincere in their
wolf protection
desire to help
measures.
A new marketing ploy ranchers cope
Dan Paul, state
wolves
is not a substitute for a with
director of The
on the range.
viable management plan But a new
Humane Society
of the United
ploy
that includes a full range marketing
States, said as
is not a substitute
of control options, in-
with cage-free
for a viable
eggs, some
cluding lethal measures management
consumers would
plan that includes
for problem wolves.
be willing to pay
a full range of
more for beef
control options,
raised with wolf
including lethal
protection measures.
measures for problem wolves.
Really?
And this is why ranchers are
First, we’d point out that all
frustrated with efforts they ¿nd, at
beef raised on grazing land in wolf
best, patronizing.
country is “wolf-friendly.” It all can
The Cattle Producers of
fall prey. Ranchers in Washington
Washington has withdrawn from
and Oregon can’t legally shoot a
the Wolf Advisory Group, calling it
wolf, as they are protected either
“inept and pointless” and saying it
by state or federal law. In fact, we
has prevented any action by the state
would argue beef protected by
Department of Fish and Wildlife
extensive measures championed
in dealing with wolves that kill
by the panel is less friendly to
livestock.
wolves. If the measures work — and
Though there are some with
producers say the results are mixed
more strident views, most ranchers
at best — wolves have to work
at least grudgingly accept that the
harder for their meal.
reintroduction of wolves into the
Second, we think the number of
West is a fait accompli. They know
people who would pay more for beef they’ll have to ¿nd a way to survive
in order to somehow help wolves
in a new paradigm that includes
would be small.
another predator.
Though we don’t necessarily
Conversely, wolf advocates and
think it’s true, people who buy cage- government wildlife agencies must
free eggs believe they’re getting a
also accept that ranchers can’t be
better quality product because of the expected to provide wolves an
way hens are treated. The reasoning
unlimited buffet. The tab must be
goes that cage-free hens are exposed paid, or the losses be stopped.
to less disease and stress, therefore
State-sponsored elimination of
their eggs are better.
ranchers is no more palatable than
But there is no corresponding
the wholesale extermination of
perceived quality enhancement for
wolves.
Unsigned editorials are the opinion of the East Oregonian editorial board of Publisher
Kathryn Brown, Managing Editor Daniel Wattenburger, and Opinion Page Editor Tim Trainor.
Other columns, letters and cartoons on this page express the opinions of the authors and not
necessarily that of the East Oregonian.
OTHER VIEWS
Cheatgrass, the
annoying killer
The (Bend) Bulletin, Oct. 11
Cheatgrass has been called the
invader that won the West, and that’s not
far off the mark. The annual grass covers
nearly 12 million acres in Oregon alone,
and can be found across the western
United States and Canada, and as far
north as Alaska.
That causes problems.
Cheat, an invasive plant that most
likely arrived here from Asia via Europe,
chokes out native plants. It blooms and
dies early, leaving in its wake a tangled
mat that makes range ¿res in these parts
far worse than they otherwise would be.
In a time of drought, that’s especially
troublesome. Moreover, after it’s fueled
a ¿re it chokes out native plants trying to
re-establish themselves.
Its effects don’t stop there. Any desert
hiker can tell you what it’s like to come
home with socks full of cheatgrass, just
as many dog owners have tales of trips
to the veterinarian to have cheat removed
from ears and noses. Cattle and horses,
too, have problems with cheatgrass.
Now comes word that a scientist with
the Agricultural Research Service of the
U.S. Department of Agriculture may
have found a way to ¿nally begin to
bring cheatgrass under control.
Ann Kennedy, a soil scientist,
has teamed up with students from
Washington State University and tested
some 25,000 bacteria taken from nearby
¿elds. Her goal was to ¿nd those that
hinder the growth of cheat but do not
hurt the growth of wheat.
She’s done just that. In fact, her
bacteria not only reduce the amount
of cheatgrass by half with a single
application, they’re also useful against
two other invasive plants, medusahead
and jointed goatgrass. At least one of her
bacteria strains is likely to be ready for
commercial sale in fall 2016.
Kennedy’s bacteria won’t be the
sole answer to the West’s cheatgrass
infestation, of course — with something
like 100 million acres of cheat
infestation in the West, nothing is — but
it’s a big step in the right direction.
That’s good for the High Desert, good
for sage grouse, good for all sorts of
things.
LETTERS POLICY
The East Oregonian welcomes original letters of 400 words or less on public
issues and public policies for publication in the newspaper and on our website.
The newspaper reserves the right to withhold letters that address concerns
about individual services and products or letters that infringe on the rights of
private citizens. Submitted letters must be signed by the author and include
the city of residence and a daytime phone number. The phone number will not
be published. Unsigned letters will not be published. Send letters to Managing
Editor Daniel Wattenburger, 211 S.E. Byers Ave. Pendleton, OR 97801 or email
editor@eastoregonian.com.
YOUR VIEWS
Calling all reasonable
gun owners
“We think it is reasonable to provide
mandatory instant criminal background
checks for every sale at every gun show. No
loopholes anywhere for anyone.” Another
intolerable utterance by president Obama?
No, it’s an ad placed in USA Today in 1999 by
the NRA.
Why the change? By the end of the 1990s
gun sales had plummeted and the NRA had
obviously forgotten who calls the shots at
their organization, the gun manufacturers.
Universal background checks would put a
further onus on sales and pro¿ts. What to do?
Pull out the ever-reliable fear card. Works
every time, as witnessed by the reaction to
any utterance of gun control. They whisper
gun control and the NRA whispers gun
con¿scation, and like Pavlov’s dogs, the
frothing at the mouth begins.
Ask yourself this: If it wasn’t for the
never-ending use of guns as the preferred
choice of people for a violent act, what
argument would the gun control people
use to limit and/or end the rights of gun
owners? Don’t be complicit in the seemingly
never-ending slaughter of the innocents in
our country. If you are a law-abiding gun
owner who supports reasonable and universal
background checks, write the NRA, your
congressman, the gun manufacturers and let
them know how you feel. After all, the very
rights you cherish are in serious peril if you
choose to stand pat on this issue.
David Gracia
Hermiston
Slow down, PC police
I could probably make a career out of
trying to add some balance to the immigration
views of the East Oregonian, but it’s probably
not advisable since they purchase ink by the
barrel. However, I have to say something
about the Guest Column from Antonio Sierra
on Saturday, October 10, 2015.
Antonio summarizes and supports the
recent decision by the Associated Press to
stop using the term “Illegal immigrant.” Mr.
Sierra then extends that logic to the term
“alien” or, more speci¿cally, “illegal alien.”
The proposed “acceptable” substitute term
is “undocumented immigrant.” The AP style
book change and every piece that has been
written to support it are all attempts to blur
the distinction between legal immigrants and
illegal immigrants, as if their presence here in
relation to the U.S. immigration law shouldn’t
matter at all.
Webster’s Dictionary de¿nes “illegal” as
“not according to authorized law” or “not
sanctioned by of¿cial rules.” Black’s /aw
Dictionary de¿nes “illegal alien” as “an alien
who enters a country at the wrong time or
place, eludes an examination by of¿cials,
obtains entry by fraud, or enters into a
sham marriage to evade immigration laws.”
Doesn’t leave a lot to the imagination, does
it?
By all means, if the term “alien” conjures
up images of little green men or spaceships
(or even Ray Walston for that matter) then
let’s drop it from the de¿nitions used to
describe this population. Even though the
current immigration statutes of the United
States expressly de¿ne an “alien” as meaning
“any person not a citizen or national of
the United States” and there are hundreds
of references to “alien” in the statutes, we
might as well call them something entirely
different simply because the “political
correctness police” say that language may be
inÀammatory.
The point is that these are not terms that
have “become increasingly antiquated” as
Mr. Sierra contends. As a matter of fact, if
we were going to follow the AP’s logic that
“human beings can’t be deemed illegal, only
the acts they commit” we would have to call
that population “undocumented immigrants
who are here illegally” in order to be fair to
the rest of the population that is here legally.
Rolls right off the tongue, doesn’t it? I’m sure
the AP simply forgot to add that extension
to the acceptable alternative description that
they proposed for their style book.
Gordon Graham
Hermiston
Language won’t stop
illegal invasion of America
Staff writer Antonio Sierra exposed himself
as an illegal immigration advocate who used
intellectually dishonest rhetoric to manipulate
Americans into accepting foreign lawlessness
in our country. His rant against legal language,
citizens and immigration law was meant to
shame Americans into a paralysis of self-cen-
sorship, but he will fail if we understand the
tactics he used.
To elevate illegal invasion to the status
of normal immigration, Sierra ¿rst tried to
commandeer our terminology by convoluting
logic. By relabeling illegal aliens as regular
“immigrants,” and using the fact that regular
immigrants become citizens, he argued that
illegal aliens are also de facto future citizens.
Sierra also tried to blur the distinction between
legal and illegal entry by calling any reformist
legislation “anti-immigrant.” Confused yet?
He hopes so.
As with other illegal alien supporters, Sierra
dismissed criticism of illegal immigration by
stating “No human is illegal” — a slogan
that appears at every illegal alien rally. No
border enforcer ever claimed that humans
were illegal, but that they were sneaking
illegally into the U.S. File Sierra’s criticism
under “Diversionary Tactics,” and if Sierra
ever confronts a burglar in his house, I hope
he remembers his own adage that because
this human is legally alive, he couldn’t have
broken any law.
/awbreakers typically feel bad or embar-
rassed when they hear an accurate description
of their behavior, but this shouldn’t stop
citizens from calling it as it is. If we applied
Sierra’s sanitized and manipulative language
to other forms of subversion, then drug dealers
would be “undocumented pharmacists” and
human smugglers would be “irregular tour
guides.” It’s bad enough that propagandists are
called “journalists.”
Lyneil Vandermolen
Tualatin
Hold Pendleton accountable
for what it already has
I see that the Gas Tax PAC made their ¿rst
pitch for the 5 cent gas tax to AAUW (East
Oregonian, October 3rd).
Somethings need clari¿cation. Councilman
Plute said in a September 19th article in
the East Oregonian that the total collected
from property taxes, ambulance fee, and
court income was $7 million. As I said in
my last letter to the editor September 30th,
the franchise fee is really a tax on Pendleton
residents worth $2.5 million in revenue for
the city. If you add the revenue from the street
fund of $2.3 million and the franchise tax the
total is $11. million. That should be used ¿rst
for basic services. The city’s priority should be
¿re, police and streets. All other nonessential
services should be funded only after high-
priority departments are well funded.
If you are wondering about water and
sewer, these funds are self-funding, not part of
the General Fund. We know the city has done
a poor job of keeping up with maintenance of
these services. There is a large raise coming
for upgrades to these services. Usually rate
increases are done in July, but this year no
increase until after the vote on the 5 cent gas
tax. (This is politics as usual.)
We are already stuck with a $5 per month
raise on our utility bill. With all the other
increases we are going to pay next year, we do
not need a new tax.
Vote NO November 3rd. This is the only
rate increase we get to vote on.
Rex J. Morehouse
Pendleton
Environmentalists win the day!
News Àash September 29, 2015,
Pendleton, Oregon. Clean water advocates
prevail
In an emergency executive session, the
Pendleton City Council bans all wildlife,
¿sh, dogs, cats, goats and humans from any
activities within 100 feet of Umatilla River,
and institutes a “no-Ày” zone up to 10,000
feet for all birds.
Mayor appoints committee to study long
term effects, and city planners contract
reputable California consulting ¿rm to design
implementation program. Bicycle riders and
electric car owners have volunteered to fund
the program. Details will be available at the
end of 30-year study. Bird watchers vow ¿ght
to ¿nish.
Other unrelated city news: In
an uncharacteristic move, city staff
recommended measures to remove the speed
bumps on Main Street, and replace them
with decorative paverstone crosswalks, and
to construct a sidewalk continuation up
the Southwest15th Street hill, demolishing
the unsafe and rotting concrete stairs on
Southwest 13th Street. That should satisfy
those darn ADA critics. However, the
city council disapproved both measures
anonymously, citing insuf¿cient data and
the common sense approach used by staff.
A committee was formed and a consulting
agency hired to further study the impact on
the community. Funding for study will be
sourced from utility tax. I meant to say “fee.”
Rick Rohde
Pendleton