Page 4A
OPINION
East Oregonian
Wednesday, January 11, 2017
OTHER VIEWS
Founded October 16, 1875
KATHRYN B. BROWN
Publisher
DANIEL WATTENBURGER
Managing Editor
TIM TRAINOR
Opinion Page Editor
MARISSA WILLIAMS
Regional Advertising Director
MARCY ROSENBERG
Circulation Manager
JANNA HEIMGARTNER
Business Office Manager
MIKE JENSEN
Production Manager
EO MEDIA GROUP
East Oregonian • The Daily Astorian • Capital Press • Hermiston Herald
Blue Mountain Eagle • Wallowa County Chieftain • Chinook Observer • Coast River Business Journal
Oregon Coast Today • Coast Weekend • Seaside Signal • Cannon Beach Gazette
Eastern Oregon Real Estate Guide • Eastern Oregon Marketplace • Coast Marketplace
OnlyAg.com • FarmSeller.com • Seaside-Sun.com • NorthwestOpinions.com • DiscoverOurCoast.com
OUR VIEW
Research helps
better understand
grazing near streams
Environmental groups say cattle
grazing on public rangeland trample
and erode streambanks and pollute
water.
But a five-year study of cattle
grazing conducted by Oregon State
University shows cattle spend only
1 to 2.5 percent of their time in
streams or buffer areas. And rather
than ranging up and down the
length of steams in allotments, cattle
used only 10 to 25 percent of the
available stream area.
The cows typically did not rest
or graze near streams. Instead, they
spent most of their time grazing on
higher ground or resting in dry areas
away from streams.
John Williams, an OSU Extension
rangeland expert in Wallowa County,
said cows enter riparian areas for
two reasons: “One is to drink, the
other is to cross.”
The study was done on a tight
budget. Researchers built their
own GPS collars, which generated
location data every five minutes.
They attached the collars to 10 cows
in three different herds.
Over the course of five years they
collected 3.75 million data points.
That data show that animals
behave differently at different
points in the grazing season. And
that, Williams says, suggests that
producers could use such data to
increase the efficiency of their
operations.
The findings are potentially
significant.
Now we know that cattle
Courtesy of Oregon State University
A cow and calf drink from Cather-
ine Creek in Northeast Oregon. Us-
ing GPS tracking collars over five
grazing seasons on federal land, re-
searchers determined cows spend 1
percent to 2.5 percent of their time
in streams.
probably don’t cause as much
damage to streams and riparian
areas as popularly thought, and
it’s possible to use real data to
reduce damage further by better
management.
The study shows the value of
testing assumptions, and using
what’s learned to make things better.
We encourage OSU to continue this
line of inquiry, and for all parties to
take note.
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.
YOUR VIEWS
Pendleton needs a plow
to clear snowy streets
I just got back from a walk to the
bread store and was not impressed with
what I saw on the streets. I understand
that it costs money to have things like
snow plows sit unused, but when it
comes to keeping the streets clear,
having a snow plow and using it is the
only way I know to make them passable
— which they aren’t right now.
When I walked across Southeast
Byers I didn’t see a speck of sand on
it and when I got to the intersection of
Southeast Court and the viaduct there
wasn’t anything there either. Why is it
that we can’t get a grant and get a snow
plow that we can put on the front of a
sand truck to at least plow the streets
around the schools, to and from the
schools and on the priority streets in
Pendleton?
Barbara A. Wright
Pendleton
Republicans plan to ax
Medicare, Medicaid
I’d best warn Eastern Oregonians
that many Willamette Valley liberals
are migrating to Representative Greg
Walden’s district. You see, now that
the GOP has complete control of
government they have declared their
intent to scuttle most of those programs
that provide a “safety net” for seniors,
workers, handicapped persons and
almost all other classes of Americans.
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, aid
to pregnant women and children, etc.,
are on the block.
But it appears that folks in Walden’s
district have nothing to fear. They
apparently have secret programs to
alleviate the impact of these gross
cutbacks. Hence, no worries about
Social Security, which will become a
program only available to the abjectly
poor. Don’t worry folks. All you others
will still be allowed to pay into the
program. You just won’t get anything
out. The excess funds will pay for more
tax cuts for the super-wealthy. Hence,
the secret Social Security program
will allow elderly citizens of District 1
to continue to live out their lives in a
modicum of comfort.
The same with Medicare and
Medicaid. These will become
underfunded voucher programs. So you
will have to try to purchase health care
with vouchers that will quickly become
not enough to cover your needs. Hence,
more of your income will be required
to buy health care or you will simply go
without. Again, District 1 citizens will
have that secret program to help them,
unlike all other Americans.
Job safety? When federal safety
standards are abolished I’m sure the
local governments of District 1 will step
in and insure workers do not needlessly
die on the job. You can use money out of
the secret fund to cover costs.
The reason I believe you folks
have secret programs and funds is that
your often re-elected representative,
Greg Walden, will vote to scuttle all
these helpful to the average American
programs.
He has done so many times before
so I suspect you are protected somehow.
There must be some backup. If you
don’t have back-ups then I guess
your elderly will have to live out their
retirement years in poverty and ill health.
I suppose without health care many of
them will die earlier, thereby saving the
government and charitable organization
even more money. That’s more money
for the super-wealthy.
Fred Brown
Dallas, Ore.
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.
Six questions about the
Russia hacking report
J
ulia Ioffe, a writer for The Atlantic
influence campaign by serving as a
who watches Russia carefully,
platform for Kremlin messaging to
tweeted this about the intelligence
Russian and international audiences.”
community’s unclassified report on
Indeed, the report devotes more space
Russian hacking released Friday:
to analyzing RT, the Russian TV
“It’s hard to tell if the thinness of the
network, than it does to hacking. It’s
#hacking report is because the proof is
hard to know how much of the alleged
classified, or because the proof doesn’t
Russian influence the IC attributes to
exist.”
hacking and how much to propaganda.
Byron
“Thin” is right. The report is brief
4) How and when did Russia
York
— the heart of it is just five broadly
transmit the hacked information to
Comment
spaced pages. It is all conclusions
WikiLeaks? “We assess with high
and no evidence. In the introduction,
confidence that the GRU used the
the IC — the collective voice of the CIA, the
Guccifer 2.0 persona, DCLeaks.com, and
FBI, and the NSA — explains that it cannot
WikiLeaks to release US victim data obtained
supply evidence to the public, because doing
in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives
so “would reveal sensitive sources or methods
to media outlets,” the IC report says. “We
and imperil the ability to collect critical foreign assess with high confidence that the GRU
intelligence in the future.”
relayed material it acquired from the DNC and
senior Democratic officials to WikiLeaks.” But
The problem is, without evidence, it’s hard
when did that happen? Was
for the public to determine
it during the period when
just what happened in the
Putin supposedly thought
hacking affair. So here are
the U.S. presidential race
six questions the IC might
was anyone’s game? Or
consider answering in the
during the time he thought
days ahead:
Clinton was likely to win?
1) When did the Russian
And if it was the latter,
hacking campaign begin?
did Russia transmit the
The report says Vladimir
information to WikiLeaks
Putin “ordered an influence
as part of an effort to
campaign in 2016.” It also
undermine Clinton’s
says Russia’s intelligence
“expected presidency”?
services gained access to
5) Just what did the
the Democratic National
Russians do to target Republicans? The IC
Committee’s computer system in July 2015 as
report has one sentence devoted to Russian
part of an effort targeting both Democrats and
cyber efforts against the GOP: “Russia
Republicans, as well as individual campaigns,
collected on some Republican-affiliated
think tanks, and lobbyists. The IC also notes
targets but did not conduct a comparable
that some of Russia’s “professional trolls ...
disclosure campaign.” There have been
started to advocate for President-elect Trump
reports that the Russians attempted to hack
as early as December 2015.” This could
the Republican National Committee, but that
be a simple writing problem, or it could be
something more significant. Is the report saying those efforts were unsuccessful. The word
Putin ordered the 2016 campaign in 2015? Is it “collected” in the IC report suggests some
effort against GOP-related targets might have
saying Russian activities in 2015 were routine
been successful, but what happened is not
operations to mess with U.S. institutions
clear. And the report does not elaborate on the
and then became part of the Putin-ordered
campaign in 2016? Is it saying something else? IC assessment that there was a big disparity
between efforts targeting Democrats and
2) Was the Russian campaign intended
Republicans.
more to help candidate Donald Trump or
6) Why can’t the IC release more?
to undermine President Hillary Clinton?
Intelligence officials have already leaked
The report says Putin ordered the 2016
classified parts of the report. For example,
campaign “to undermine public faith in the
The Washington Post recently reported
U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary
that U.S. intelligence agencies “intercepted
Clinton, and harm her electability and
potential presidency.” The report goes on to
communications in the aftermath of
say that at some point Putin “developed a
the election in which Russian officials
clear preference” for Trump. But it also says
congratulated themselves on the outcome.” The
Post also reported the intercepted messages
that “Moscow’s approach evolved over the
“revealed that top officials in Russia anticipated
course of the campaign based on Russia’s
that Clinton would win.” There will likely be
understanding of the electoral prospects of
many more leaks to come. Why not at least
the two main candidates. When it appeared
release the information that has already been
to Moscow that Secretary Clinton was likely
leaked?
to win the election, the Russian influence
To the degree that there are partisan
campaign then focused on undermining her
differences in assessing the Russia hacking
expected presidency.” That suggests some sort
affair, it’s important that Republicans with
of shift in the Russian campaign. But when?
access to the classified IC report leak as much
3) How much of the Russian campaign
as Democrats. A confused public will be trying
was garden-variety propaganda? The IC
to get a picture of what the full report says.
report says, “Russia’s state-run propaganda
Better to get both views of what’s in there.
machine — comprised of its domestic media
■
apparatus, outlets targeting global audiences
Byron York is chief political correspondent
such as RT and Sputnik, and a network of
for The Washington Examiner.
quasi-government trolls — contributed to the
Without evidence,
it’s hard for
the public to
determine just
what happened in
the hacking affair.
OTHER VIEWS
Concerns about tightened antibiotic restrictions
The Bend Bulletin, Jan. 7
S
tarting Jan. 1, the federal Food and
Drug Administration tightened the rules
about using antibiotics on feed animals.
When the Oregon Legislature convenes Feb.
1, it will consider a state measure that would
further tighten rules governing antibiotic use.
The changes could help combat the growing
problem of antibiotic-resistant bugs, but there
are legitimate concerns from ranchers.
The FDA rules prohibit the use of
“medically important antibiotics” except
under limited conditions. They do so in part by
eliminating the right of retailers to sell over the
counter to ranchers some antibiotics that would
require prescriptions for human use. Now,
ranchers, feed-lot operators and others may
use those drugs only under the supervision
of a veterinarian. That may be an expensive
proposition for backyard farmers with only
a handful of cattle or for an operator whose
ranch is far from the nearest veterinarian.
The state law would not change that
requirement. It would specifically limit
nontherapeutic use (an animal is not yet sick)
to times when the risk of disease is present
— during times of high stress, for example. In
addition, the proposal says such drugs must
be given to the fewest animals possible and
for the shortest period of time necessary to
prevent the spread of disease.
The House Committee on Health Care’s
Legislative Concept 2410 — the precursor
of a bill — also includes a state reporting
requirement that would apply only to ranchers
and others who operate confined animal
feeding operations, generally those with larger
numbers of animals. Those reports would
become a matter of public record under the
proposal. Lawmakers should think long and
hard about asking for the specific number
of animals thus treated, which could give
unnecessary insight into a producer’s finances.
The regulatory changes will require some
producers to alter their ways, clearly, though
with major fast-food companies’ newfound love
of antibiotic-free meat, they may have done so
anyway. Even without a push from retailers,
however, both the FDA rules and the Oregon
law make sense. Antibiotic-resistant bugs are an
increasingly dangerous health problem.