The Oregonian newspaper featured a front page article on the problems of Measure 49 which is the measure that brought limits to landowner compensation but promised a fast-track process.  Three years later, few new homes have been approved and built under the new system with landowners complaining of a process rigged against the landowners.  The Oregonian article states:

“Supporters spent nearly $5 million to pass Measure 49 in 2007 and convinced voters that it would resolve problems caused by the passage of Measure 37 three years earlier. With Measure 49, the campaign argument went, most property owners would be allowed to build one to three houses under an “Express Lane” process instead of thousands of homes and rural subdivisions they claimed the right to build under Measure 37. “

But little construction has occurred in the three years since the fix. Some claimants have been turned down for what lawyers say are hyper-technical reasons, counties are interpreting the law differently and — yes — land-use attorneys are parading to the courts for help.

Oregon City lawyer Kristen David  says the state rejected some of her clients’ development plans and about two dozen have simply given up. She’s asked judges in Clackamas, Hood River and Jackson counties to review and reverse the state findings.

To continue reading click here.

No Reason to Fear Our Food Supply

This week we are supposed to be afraid of eating eggs. Apparently we have about a 1 in 20,000 chance of getting salmonella from eating eggs. The odds are slightly higher that you will die in a fall this year. I will take those odds and so would Vegas.

Interestingly enough I celebrated the big egg scare by whipping up a wonderful spinach quiche and an omelet the next day. I wish I could say I am really that sarcastic and warped, but I really already bought the stuff and had a hankering for eggs.  Eggs are a great tasting, inexpensive source of protein that are fast and easy to cook so I wasn’t real big on letting fear overpower good judgment or my taste buds. As with many food scares a little common sense goes a long ways toward keeping you safe, healthy and well fed.

Food related illnesses in the U.S. are actually pretty rare considering the size of our population and the amount of food we consume at home, at work, at play and on the run.

If an egg containing Salmonella has been kept refrigerated and someone who uses good hygiene practices serves it to you immediately after proper cooking, you’ll simply have a nutritious meal. If the egg has been improperly handled, though, you might experience the foodborne illness

Livestock Producers Fear GIPSA Rule’s Vagueness and Unintended Consequences

FORT COLLINS (Aug. 27, 2010) – Beef and pork producers rallied against USDA’s Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration’s (GIPSA) proposed federal rule on the buying and selling of livestock at a public meeting held in Fort Collins, Colo., Aug. 27. The meeting on competition in the livestock industry was hosted by USDA and Department of Justice.

Producers voiced concerns to USDA Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack about the unintended consequences of the proposed rule. Robbie LeValley, president of the Colorado Cattlemen’s Association; a cattle producer; and a co-owner of Homestead Meats, a family owned company marketing beef locally, is worried that the proposed rule could have a negative impact on her family business.

“Our innovation and our willingness to do direct marketing has basically now labeled us a packer and under the proposed rule, as I read it, now limits our marketing options – meaning not being able to sell to other packers,” she said. “While some say that is not the intent of the rule, the vagueness of the language makes it very possible.”

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) held a media briefing on Aug. 26 regarding the proposed rule. Pork and beef producers representing more than 20 states attended the meeting to voice their opposition to the GIPSA rule, expressing the negative effect it could have on their operations.

“As written, the GIPSA rule would limit my ability to sell hogs,” said NPPC President Sam Carney, a producer from Adair, Iowa. “It’s a solution in search of a problem. The markets work, and we don’t need the government trying to ‘fix’ it. The GIPSA rule is overly broad and very vague. It would inject uncertainty into the market, stifle innovation and lead to less not more competition in the livestock industry.”

###

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) has represented America’s cattle producers since 1898, preserving the heritage and strength of the industry through education and public policy. As the largest association of cattle producers, NCBA works to create new markets and increase demand for beef. Efforts are made possible through membership contributions. To join, contact NCBA at 1-866-BEEF-USA or membership@beef.org.

More push to get legislation giving the public the right to recreate on privately-owned banks and uplands along non-navigable waterways

During the 2010 special session of the legislature, Senator Alan Bates of Jackson County introduced a  bill that gave the public (1) the right to use the privately owned banks of non-navigable, but “floatable” waterways for recreation (swimming, fishing, camping, picnicking, etc.), and (2) rights to use privately owned uplands (land about the “ordinary high water” line, including pastures, wooded areas, crop fields, and yards).

The bill was defeated, but Oregon Secretary of State Kate Brown (a member of the State Land Board) has formed a River Users Work Group in an effort to come up with compromise legislation that could pass in the next regular session.   Because of the threat to the property rights of  many landowners all across the state, Oregonians In Action is participating in the Work Group.

Here is a brief discussion of the issues.

Under state and federal law, the beds and banks (up to the ordinary high water mark) of “navigable” waterways are owned by the state, and the public can use the beds and banks for recreational purposes.

The beds and banks of “non-navigable” waterways are owned by the owners of the land next to the waterway, and the public has no right to use the banks up to the ordinary high water mark for recreation under Oregon law (statutes and court decisions).

However, based on a 2005 opinion of the Oregon Attorney General, state agencies such as the Department of State Lands have proclaimed that the public does have the right to recreate on the banks of non-navigable but “floatable” waterways under the “public use doctrine.”

The Attorney General’s opinion does not create law.  It is binding on state agencies, but does not bind the judiciary, local law enforcement, prosecutors, the legislature, or members of the public.  Nevertheless, the 2005 opinion has created significant problems for Oregon property owners, despite its flawed legal analysis and conclusions.

OIA believes the Attorney General’s opinion that the public has the right to recreate on the banks of “floatable” waterways is not supported by the Oregon Supreme Court decisions.  The decisions focus primarily on the public’s  right to use the water for floating logs or for pleasure boats.  They allow the public the right to use privately owned banks only when “necessary” such as attaching a log boom to the bank to prevent logs from going over falls, or when a pleasure boat has an emergency.

It would be a truly remarkable stretch for the Oregon Supreme Court to hold that a member of the public has the right to use the beds and the banks of a “floatable” stream, pond, or lake for recreational uses, and an even bigger stretch to authorize the use of uplands.

But property owners have a problem.  Unfortunately, at the present time, property owners have difficulty getting law enforcement officials to arrest and prosecute members of the public for trespassing on the banks of “non-navigable” waterways.  The are two main reasons.

The first is that, because the courts can determine that a waterway is navigable, and the criteria for demonstrating navigability is cumbersome, expensive, and uncertain, the offender could allege and prove that the waterway is “navigable” as a defense (this would give the offender the right to use the banks).  For law enforcement and prosecutors, this means a lengthy and difficult trial with a result that is hard to predict.

The second is that the 2005 Attorney General opinion has caused further uncertainty for local law enforcement and prosecutors, and has emboldened members of the public who desire to trespass on private property in order to make recreational use of the beds and banks of waterways.  The trespasser could raise this as a defense, and it is difficult for law enforcement to work with such uncertain standards.

The legislative bill that was defeated in 2010 not only gave the public the right to recreate on the banks of “floatable” waterways, it gave the public the rights to use “uplands” (land above the ordinary high water mark) for recreational purposes, including camping, picknicking.  Many participants in the Work Group strongly supported these provisions.  For property owners, no part of the 2010 legislation would have been more devastating than this provision.

Fortunately, there are a number of participants that share OIA’s concerns and we are working closely with them.  One avenue to be pursued is preparing a lawsuit asking the courts to reject the 2005 Attorney General opinion.  This would be of some help in getting law enforcement officials to prevent trespassing.

Unfortunately, even if the Attorney General’s opinion is overturned in the courts, law enforcement officials may continue to be reluctant to arrest trespassers because trespassers might allege and prove that the waterway is navigable (so the public has the right to use the banks).  This would be a very costly procedure for trespassers to use, but prosecutors may use the possibility as an excuse not to prosecute.

Given the lack of current law enforcement efforts to stop trespassers and the lack of certainty in the law, there may be some merit in seeking legislation that would clarify the law.  However, in order to pass that legislation, the groups demanding access to the beds and banks are going to demand concessions.  This is the difficulty with any legislative compromise.

Having some protection against some trespassers on the banks may be better for property owners than no protection against all trespassers.  Another reason for compromise legislation is to reduce the push for the state to declare more waterways to be navigable (which would allow the public to unlimited use of banks).

The compromise should also include the following:

(1) Legislation prohibiting use of uplands (land above the “ordinary high water” mark which is generally the vegetation line).

(2) Legislation that would preclude violators from using “navigability” and the “public use doctrine” as defenses to unauthorized uses of banks and uplands.

(3) Access to the banks must be by boat, raft or other floatable device, or across public land.  This would automatically resolve disputes relating to what and when waterways are “floatable,” and limit recreational use.

(4) Necessary funding for law enforcement and an agreement from law enforcement and prosecutors to aggressively pursue trespass actions.

Oregonians In Action will welcome comments and suggestions concerning this complex and important matter.

Last year, California ended the practice of dredge mining in its rivers. With the ban in effect, out-of-state miners have flooded into southern Oregon rivers armed with $25 permits issued by the state.

I’ve a long history with “The New 49′ers,” the miners association that organizes equipment and permits for dredge miners. I’ve seen what its members have done to some of the great rivers in the West. Dredge miners dump all the material they remove from a river bottom downstream, changing the entire structure and hydraulics of streams and their fish habitat. They squat on public land, not in campgrounds. They live next to their rigs the entire season. The responsibility to make them move on falls on local law enforcement. As someone who has represented two large southern Oregon counties for more than a decade of meager public safety funding, I’ll tell you that our sheriff’s officers don’t need this chore.

Dredge mining was an issue when I was first elected to Oregon’s House of Representatives in 1999. While I didn’t have the ability at the time to stop the practice, I worked to ensure that the diameter of the vacuum pipes that miners use were limited, that dredge material was placed upstream instead of downstream, and that miners must fill the holes they create in stream bottoms.

As I did then, I still support Oregonians pursuing recreational gold panning, but I didn’t want out-of-state commercial permits allowed in Oregon. That hasn’t been an issue for years, but with the new California ban in effect, miners from across the United States are rushing into southern Oregon.

If you believe in protecting Oregon’s rivers, you too should be outraged. If you’re a taxpayer and believe in private property rights, you should be outraged. If you’re a farmer who manages your land, you should agree this is wrong. No Oregonian has the right to go to Texas, Indiana or North Carolina (just a few of the state license plates I saw on miners’ vehicles on the Rogue River) and dredge-mine their rivers’ spawning grounds. So why are we providing that ability here in Oregon?

I’m an unashamed, passionate steelheader, and I’m raising the fifth-generation Atkinson fly-flinger. Two weeks ago my 7-year-old and I caught trout and released them by a sandy bar next to our favorite run on the Applegate River. Days later, that same sandy bar had an out-of-state dredge miner on it when I arrived with Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian. Twenty-five bucks gave him the “right” to camp for months on public ground, set up a modern mine, transfer gasoline from the bank to his rig on the water, and destroy what the local community — from both agriculture and conservation interests — agreed was worth protecting.

I asked to see the miner’s permit and talked to him about his intentions. It was simple: He was going to use larger-diameter vacuum hoses, move material downstream and suck the riverbed dry of gold. Then he planned to move on to the next river.

I asked: “Did the state agencies who gave you the permits tell you how long you could camp here and what the Oregon restrictions are regarding sensitive fish habitat?”

The answer: “No.”

Private property advocates, taxpayer groups and the environmental community all have a reason to work together to stop this practice. Rafters, fishermen and Oregon’s river boating industry should join in. In Oregon, we’re proud of our rivers and have worked together for years to protect them, and we shouldn’t allow this dredge mining.

Let me be less diplomatic than former Gov. Tom McCall when it comes to out-of-state dredge miners: Welcome to Oregon; now leave.

– see The Oregonian

NCBA Applauds Senate Approval of Mandatory Price Reporting

WASHINGTON (Aug. 6, 2010) – Well into the evening yesterday, Aug. 5, 2010, the U.S. Senate reauthorized by unanimous consent the Livestock Mandatory Price Reporting Act (LMPR), which was set to expire Sept. 30 of this year. Colin Woodall, vice president of government affairs for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), said the reauthorization will continue to encourage transparency in the marketplace. He said producers have come to rely on the information provided by the LMPR to aid in their negotiation of sales prices for cattle and meat products.

“This mandatory reporting provides U.S. producers with readily understandable and timely information regarding pricing, contracting for purchase, and supply and demand conditions for all segments of the beef industry,” said Woodall, adding that NCBA was part of an industry coalition urging Congress to reauthorize LMPR. “Along with transparency, LMPR encourages competition, without violating producers’ privacy, in the marketplace by substantially increasing the volume of industry sales transactions reported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.”

LMPR was signed into law by President Clinton as part of the 2000 Agricultural Appropriations Bill. Prior to 2001, information was collected by observing public auction markets and via voluntary submission by market participants. However, by 1999 many producers had come to notice fundamental changes in the market structure. About 35 percent of fed cattle sales in 1999 occurred via contract agreements that were not covered by USDA reports. Bruce Hafenfeld, California cattle producer and NCBA’s policy division chair, said these unreported transactions hampered producers’ ability to accurately assess livestock prices, negotiate with packers or obtain a fair price when selling their livestock. He said LMPR augments producers’ knowledge base when making marketing decisions by providing them with pricing and sales information from transactions around the country.

“As a producer of food and fiber for a growing global population, I appreciate the Senate’s efforts to help continue the availability of timely and accurate information for U.S. cattle producers. By reauthorizing mandatory price reporting, cattle producers will continue to have access to daily price and volume information on purchases of cattle and boxed beef sales as well as export and import data,” Hafenfeld said. “This effort to enhance transparency in the marketplace is a definite win for every aspect of the industry.”

Woodall said LMPR now needs approval from the U.S. House of Representatives. He said NCBA will continue to urge the House to reauthorize LMPR before it expires next month.

###

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) has represented America’s cattle producers since 1898, preserving the heritage and strength of the industry through education and public policy.  As the largest association of cattle producers, NCBA works to create new markets and increase demand for beef.  Efforts are made possible through membership contributions. To join, contact NCBA at 1-866-BEEF-USA or membership@beef.org.

Excerpts from the Wall Street Journal Editorial on Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln farm aid problems…

Last year heavy rain damaged cotton and rice crops across the South. The 2008 farm bill, passed by a Democratic Congress, created the Supplemental Revenue Assistance Program (SURE) to aid farmers hit by such weather-related disasters. The admirable intent was to stop farm-state Senators from looting the Treasury after every early frost or the like. To qualify for SURE funds, farmers are now required to buy crop insurance (federally subsidized to the tune of about $6 billion a year) and to have lost more than 30% of their crop value.

Mrs. Lincoln wants to pull an end run around this law and make Arkansas farmers eligible for retroactive taxpayer payments. The payments would be made even if the recipients didn’t buy crop insurance and even if their damages were as little as 5%. Most small businesses in America suffered far more than a 5% fall in revenues during the recession, but few are getting six-figure handouts from Uncle Sam. Rice and cotton prices have recovered nicely this year in any event.

Mrs. Lincoln’s claim is preposterous enough that she can’t persuade even her fellow Democrats to pony up the cash. First she suggested tapping TARP for the money. When that didn’t fly, she tried unsuccessfully to add an earmark to a war funding bill, and then to the small business bill that Congress will take up after Labor Day. Her colleagues keep saying “no.”

Enter the White House. In an August 6 letter, deputy budget director Robert L. Nabors II pledged that “the Administration is committed to providing [the disaster] assistance consistent with your legislative proposal by the end of the month.” The White House says it can do so under a Depression-era law allowing tariff funds to be used for farm emergency payments. Past Administrations have done so, including the Bush Administration, but seldom at such a scale or to usurp so blatantly Congress’s power of the purse.

Much of the money will go to some of the largest farms or plantations. According to an analysis by the liberal-leaning Environmental Working Group, Ratio Farms in Helena, Arkansas is in line to get $787,000, and that is on top of the $874,000 the agribusiness giant received in farm payments in 2009. Nearly 200 Arkansas farms and 100 Louisiana farms will get a check for $100,000 or more, and the 10% richest farmers will get almost two-thirds of the money. One of the few federal programs the Obama administration has said it wants to eliminate is farm subsidies to wealthy farmers — unless, apparently, the money goes to the state of an endangered Democratic Senator.

Coincidentally—or not—the USDA has chosen this moment to stop publishing the names of farm subsidy recipients and how much they receive. As EWG puts it: “This policy effectively shields from disclosure subsidy benefits going to multiple, and often absentee, owners of large, agribusiness farming operations.” The USDA says shutting down the data base will save money. Welcome to the new era of transparency in government…

Virus kills deer in Corvallis neighborhood

CORVALLIS, Ore. – Adenovirus Hemorrhagic Disease (AHD) is the likely cause of death in as many as 20 black-tailed deer in a Corvallis neighborhood over the past month, according to pathology tests conducted by state veterinarians. Since July 23, veterinarians from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and Oregon State University have confirmed AHD as the cause of death in two deer carcasses recovered in the Timberhill area of Corvallis. Several other carcasses collected in the Timberhill area also have signs consistent with AHD, according to Dr. Julia Burco, ODFW district wildlife veterinarian.

Timberhill is located in northeast Corvallis next to OSU’s McDonald-Dunn Research Forest.

AHD affects only deer and poses no risk to humans, pets or livestock, according to Burco. The disease is spread primarily by direct deer-to-deer contact and has symptoms that include foaming or drooling at the mouth, diarrhea, seizures and weakness. Fawns are the most susceptible to the disease due to their poorly developed immune systems. Deer exposed to the virus often die within 3-5 days. There is no known cure or effective treatment for affected animals.

So far the AHD outbreak appears to be limited to a herd concentrated in the Corvallis area, although the disease has shown up at other times in other parts of the state. AHD was described as the cause of a die-off affecting thousands of California mule deer in 1993 and 1994. It was also responsible for a smaller outbreak, killing more than 400 animals in the Crooked River Ranch area near Sisters, Oregon in 2002.

Deer are more susceptible to AHD when they congregate in small areas, according to Burco. To keep this from happening, ODFW staff encourages people not to provide water or feed for deer to reduce the likelihood they will congregate, increasing the possibility of disease transmission between individual animals. In addition to spreading disease through direct contact, AHD infected deer may shed the virus into a water source or feed pile, possibly infecting future deer that try to eat or drink at the site.

Persons who see a sick or dead deer are advised to call ODFW’s Wildlife Hotline at 1-866-968-2600 so appropriate diagnostics can be performed or disposal techniques advised.

###

U.S. Agriculture Paying Price for Inaction on Mexican Trucks

WASHINGTON, D.C., August 19, 2010 – Mexico’s trade retaliation against the United States is expanding in size and scope due to the U.S. government not meeting obligations to allow Mexican trucks to operate in the United States. Due to this inaction, America’s farmers and ranchers are paying a steep price and the American Farm Bureau Federation is calling for immediate action to correct the matter. The updated retaliation list published by Mexico includes tariffs that take effect today against U.S. pork, certain types of U.S. cheese, pistachios, a wide range of U.S. fruits and vegetables and other farm and non-farm goods. “Mexico is one of our best trading partners and allowing this retaliation to continue for a provision we are obligated to meet is simply unacceptable,” said AFBF President Bob Stallman. “The economic impact from this growing list will be significant to many farmers and ranchers.”

Mexico has taken this action because under NAFTA, Mexican motor carriers are allowed to transport international cargo within the U.S. In 2007, the U.S. Department of Transportation announced a demonstration project to begin implementation of the negotiated cross-border trucking provisions. In March 2009, Congress failed to renew the program to allow a limited number of trucks from Mexico to haul loads into the United States beyond a 25-mile zone.

Mexico brought a NAFTA case against the United States on the issue. A ruling found that the United States was not in compliance with its obligations, and Mexico was granted the authority to retaliate if efforts are not taken by the U.S. to comply.

“As we can see from the growing list of agricultural and food items on Mexico’s retaliation list, America’s farmers and ranchers are particularly vulnerable,” Stallman said. “We sell a huge amount of food and farm goods to Mexico, so we have a lot to lose. As the retaliation list continues to grow, it comes at a steep cost to U.S. agriculture.”

Under NAFTA, U.S. food and agriculture exports have more than tripled, climbing from an average $3-4 billion per year prior to NAFTA to more than $12 billion in 2007, making Mexico the second largest export market for U.S. agriculture products.

“The U.S. has made significant strides under NAFTA, resulting in increased export opportunities and the creation of thousands of American jobs,” said Stallman. “But, continued inaction by the U.S. to address our Mexican truck obligations is likely to erode the gains we’ve made.”

NAFTA was fully implemented January 1, 2008. The agreement eliminates tariffs on U.S. agricultural products entering Mexico.

Tansy ragwort re-emerges in Oregon, but still controllable

Farmers and ranchers in Western Oregon this summer are noticing patches of the telltale bright yellow flowers of tansy ragwort- a noxious weed once the scourge of the 1970s. But the experts at the Oregon Department of Agriculture say it’s no cause for alarm as successful biological control agents should keep the plant from making an unwelcome comeback to prior levels.

The equation is simple- as the tansy ragwort population grows, so do the populations of flea beetles and cinnabar moths that feed off the weed. It’s all part of a natural cycle, and ODA’s Noxious Weed Control Program believes the good insects will maintain the upper hand.

In the last couple of weeks, ODA has been receiving calls from landowners or their neighbors  anxious about the return of tansy ragwort, now in a very visible stage. The outbreaks are spotty and localized. Still, many Oregonians remember the bad old days when tansy was so invasive in Western Oregon that cattle and horse owners reported more than $4 million in losses each year as their animals grazed on infected pastures. Too often, the leaves of tansy grew among the grasses consumed by livestock in the spring, leading to sickness and death.

At this point in the growing season, the tansy flowers are in bloom and the weed is tall enough for animals to generally avoid by eating around it.

“The late spring and early summer rain has led to a resurgence in some areas,” says ODA entomologist Eric Coombs. “It’s counterintuitive to just let it go right now, but the whole premise of biological control is to allow the insects present to naturally build up on their own.”

Coombs has personally visited many of the sites where tansy has popped up this year and has found the good bugs- the biocontrol agents that help kill the weedy plant- present in all cases. This comes after intensive efforts years ago to release insects in infested areas where the flea beetle and cinnabar moth are now established as part of the natural environment. Due to the cool, wet spring, cinnabar moth populations are very low this year. However, the flea beetles are still active.

“I think we’ve done our job, now it’s time to wait and let the insects to their job,” says Coombs. “It’s all a natural cycle. We will get these flare-ups of tansy ragwort that will move around from field to field depending on factors like the weather or how the field is used. It might be another year or two before the insects build up in numbers again and knock the weed back down. It would take three to five years if the natural enemies had to be reintroduced.”

Tansy ragwort has the distinction of being the only weed for which a Governor’s Task Force was created, leading to a control program housed in ODA that has made effective use of biological control.

“Since the mid-1980s, there has been an estimated $5 million annual benefit from the biological control of tansy ragwort throughout Western Oregon,” says Coombs. “All in all, for every dollar spent in our biocontrol program, the public gets about $13 back in benefits due to the impact of reuniting a noxious weed with its natural enemies.”

The cinnabar moth eats the leaves of tansy ragwort. With the flea beetle working on the roots and ragwort seed fly eating the seeds, the fearsome threesome has worked wonders. It has been almost too good. Much of the weed has been destroyed over the last 25 or so years that there hasn’t been enough tansy to maintain high populations of the bugs. The result this summer has been a sporadic but definite reappearance of the poisonous weed. While ODA would prefer a complete eradication of tansy, realistically, it is not in the biocontrol agent’s best interests to eat up every last plant.

“As long as we can suppress the weed below an economically damaging level, we’ll be satisfied,” says Tim Butler, supervisor of the Weed Control Program.

Tansy ragwort contains poisonous alkaloids that can kill livestock if ingested. Three decades ago, when much of Western Oregon was covered with the weed, cattle and horses were dropping in alarming numbers. Oregon doesn’t appear to be returning to that scenario despite this year’s resurgence of tansy. ODA will be working with Oregon State University’s Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory to see if any documented cases of tansy poisoning of livestock are reported. The last documented case goes back to 1995.

ODA officials continue to say as long as livestock are not dying due to the poisoning, the insects are doing their job at controlling tansy- even though there have been some very noticeable flare-ups. Patiently waiting for the established biological control agents to build up is still the best course of action. That’s not easy for some farmers and ranchers, and it doesn’t mean there is nothing they can do in the meantime to help.

“If they can maintain good pasture management techniques- fertilization, prevention of overgrazing,  and irrigation to help maintain the competitive advantage of desirable plants species- that all plays a key role in minimizing soil disturbances that lead to emergence of tansy ragwort from the seed bank in the soil,” says Butler.

In addition to overgrazing, factors leading to the resurgence of tansy include construction, logging, fires, floods, and other events or practices in which the soil is disturbed.

Pulling or mowing are always available options, but the latter only leads to the weed growing back stronger and heartier next year. Herbicides can be used to control tansy ragwort but need to be applied in early spring before the stalks are formed or late fall after some re-growth of seedlings and rosettes.

Until then, the best advice is to practice patience and wait for the good bugs to beat the bad weeds.

For more information, contact Tim Butler at (503) 986-4621.

Sen. Kerry’s Energy Tax Bill Would Help Energy Storage Technologies

On August 5, 2010, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) introduced S.3738—the Clean Energy Technology Leadership Act of 2010—which would have some impact on the growth of energy storage technologies in the United States.

Among other things, the bill would provide for an extension and modification of the Advanced Energy Manufacturing Tax Credit (the “MTC”), a credit authorized under the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act aimed at stimulating and expanding the domestic manufacturing industry for clean energy technologies.  The MTC is also referred to as Section 48C of the Internal Revenue Code (the “IRC”). The proposed modifications would extend the MTC to “statutory advanced energy property,” the definition of which includes property used exclusively to manufacture or fabricate fuel cell power plants and systems for the electrochemical storage of electricity (other than lead-acid batteries) for use in connection with electric grids.

Also noteworthy is that S.3738 is similar to the STORAGE 2010 Act, introduced by Sens. Bingaman (D-NM), Wyden (D-OR), and Shaheen (D-NH) in July. Click here for more on that bill. Both bills amend Section 54C of the IRC to allow grid-connected energy storage systems to qualify for Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (“CREBs”). In addition to including energy storage technology in the CREBs program, S.3738 would expand the program by increasing the national new clean renewable bond limitation by $3.5 billion in 2010; sixty percent (60%) of that amount must be allocated by the Department of the Treasury to public power providers, and forty percent (40%) must be allocated to electric cooperatives.

A major distinction between Sen. Kerry’s bill and the STORAGE 2010 Act is that Sen. Kerry’s bill does not add energy storage devices to the list of technologies eligible for the federal investment tax credit.  The full text of the bill can be found here.

Items in this newsletter
1. Task Force Report Disappoints
2. DeFazio Convenes BLM Meeting
3. FS/BLM Budget
4. DNR Timber Report
…more

Task Force Report Disappoints

On July 22, the Administration released the Final Report of the Western Oregon Task Force. The Task Force visited Oregon in January of this year and interviewed various stakeholders interested in BLM land management policies. The report is far from providing a way for the BLM to move forward with timber management in the absence of the Western Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR), which was withdrawn by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar on July 16, 2009.

The 33 page report instead calls for the formation of committees, and processes that largely sidestep any effort to resolve the issues that have been hampering the management of these federal forests for the better part of two decades. Instead of directly addressing these issues, the Administration has suggested assessing “opportunities for economic diversification in O&C counties” and “redirecting the current budget and performance focus away from timber targets and toward forest health and restoration.” It also recommends that the science work done in developing the WOPR “be independently reviewed by an Interagency Science Team.”

In short, the report is a repackaging of a number of recommendations that have no reasonable chance of success and will do nothing to resolve the issues facing Oregon’s forests and struggling rural communities. The report has received almost universal criticism ranging from the Oregon Congressional Delegation to the Editorial Board of the Oregonian.

Representatives Peter DeFazio (D-OR), Kurt Schrader (D-OR), Greg Walden (R-OR) and Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) immediately sent a letter to Secretary Salazar expressing their disappointment with the report. They noted that a May, 2010 request to meet with the Secretary has gone unanswered and renewed their request to meet to discuss the “next steps to offer an interim timber supply and develop a long-term forest plan for Western Oregon.” The delegation’s press release and letter can be found at: http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/or02_walden/07_22_10_western_oregon_task_force.shtml The Obama Administration continues to ignore the practical solution of moving sustainable forest management projects forward under either the Northwest Forest Plan or the WOPR. If the Secretary believes the way in which Endangered Species Act consultation was done on the WOPR is a legally fatal flaw, the sensible solution is to undertake consultation and resolve that issue. No steps in that direction have been taken since the WOPR was “withdrawn” more than a year ago. A copy of the report can be found at http://www.blm.gov/or/news/files/WOTF_FinalReport.pdf /Ann Forest Burns

DeFazio Convenes BLM Meeting

On July 9, Representative Peter DeFazio convened a meeting in Eugene to discuss approaches for moving forest management projects forward on BLM lands in southwest Oregon. In addition to DeFazio and his staff, representatives from AFRC and local forest products companies, the environmental community, BLM staff, academia and staff from the office of Senator Ron Wyden were  in attendance. The discussions focused on the challenges facing the BLM as it seeks to plan and implement timber management projects on the Medford and Roseburg Districts. These districts lack the plantation forests currently found in the Salem and Eugene Districts and are facing other limiting factors related to the Northern Spotted Owl and Red Tree Vole in trying to propose projects in intermediate aged stands.

DeFazio outlined his concern with the current paralysis facing the BLM and local communities in southwest Oregon and his desire to work with the BLM, the industry, the environmental community and others to resolve these long standing issues. His office is currently working with the BLM to identify an area to propose and implement meaningful forest management projects that will provide a possible path forward for managing these forests and identify issues that may require administrative or legislative correction.

In the short term, the paralysis facing these BLM districts is severely impacting local mills and communities. With a little over 2 months remaining in the Fiscal Year, the Medford BLM has sold little more than 2 million board feet (mmbf). This compares to a 60 mmbf target under the Northwest Forest Plan and a 21 mmbf timber sale program announced by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar last year. /Heath Heikkila

FS/BLM Budget

On July 22, the House Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee Chaired by Representative Jim Moran (D-VA) approved a $32.2 billion spending bill, which provides funding for the Forest Service and BLM. The Committee has embargoed the detailed bill and conference report, but did provide a summary table outlining overall funding levels. According to the summary, the overall Interior Appropriations bill was basically a flat budget from 2010 with roughly $11 billion going to the Department of Interior, $10 billion to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and $4.9 billion to the Forest Service.

The BLM’s budget was reduced from $1.133 billion in FY10 to $1.11 billion (a $23 million decrease).

The Committee has not provided a summary outlining funding levels for the BLM’s O&C Lands, which the Obama Administration proposed cutting by $6 million. Representative Peter DeFazio and other Oregon delegation members recently wrote to Chairman Moran requesting that this funding be restored. The Forest Service budget remained the same at $4.9 billion, however, the National Forest System line item, which includes funding for non-fire land management activities, including timber management, was increased by $37 million over FY10. It is also unclear what position the Committee took on the Administration’s Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR) budget proposal. The Administration had sought to combine several National Forest System line items, including timber management, into one large program account and direct some funds to the Forest Landscape Restoration Act (FLRA) and to the preparation of large-scale watershed restoration projects. The overall impact of this budget proposal would most likely be a reduction for funds available for on-the-ground timber management.

Significant questions remain in both the House and Senate regarding the 2011 Forest Service budget and how exactly it would be implemented. They include:

* The new IRR combined line item. – There are many unanswered questions about the proposal and how the large bucket approach would operate. One suggestion has been to consider a pilot program on a limited number of national forests. The proposed carve outs for the FLRA and Watershed projects have left the impression that the Forest Service may have more proposed activities than resources available.

* Timber Program Volume – There remains a great deal of angst that the Forest Service is attempting to get away from measurable timber outputs and move only to acres treated as targets. The 2011 budget did have a timber output of 2.4 billion board feet which was down from the 2010 output of 2.5 billion board feet. If the agency goes only to an acreage target, this could have significant ramifications on the remaining forest products infrastructure if the acres treated only have minor components of merchantable sawlogs.

* Roads Funding – Several Appropriations Subcommittee members have voiced concern regarding the large reduction in road building and maintenance funds which could impact planned timber management activities. There will be times when roads will need to be maintained, moved, or joined for the sake of operations. The cuts proposed in this account will make matters difficult, and appropriators will have to balance limited dollars between competing demands, including the Legacy Roads and Trails program. Past House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Norm Dicks (D-WA) has been a strong proponent of this program to restore or remove failing Forest Service roads.

* Watershed Restoration – The Administration’s proposal to remove $50 million from the base of the Forest Service budget to fund to watershed studies and restoration activities is a concern without additional new funding.

* The Administration’s proposal to move to the exclusive use of stewardship contracts has been withdrawn following opposition from many House and Senate members.

Many of these issues were discussed in the House Subcommittee hearing. Given that the Senate Subcommittee has yet to take up the bill it appears likely that a Continuing Resolution will be in the works for FY11, which would fund government programs at FY10 levels. / Tom Partin

DNR Timber Report

The Washington DNR has completed it FY10 timber sale program and below are the end of year results. FY10 was the highest volume sold by DNR since the late 1980’s.

Sales offered 200 Sales sold 193 Sales no-bid 7 Volume offered 765 mmbf Volume sold 742 Volume no-bid 23 % Volume sold 97 Sold sale value $183.4 million Price/MBF 247 Overbid ratio 31% Average bidders per sale 3.51

DNR expects to sell approximately 650 mmbf in FY11, 590 mmbf will come from westside forests and 60 mmbf from the eastside forests. DNR has made up their volume arrearage from the decades’ early years and harvest should be at the sustained yield level of 650 mmbf through the rest of the harvest decade which ends in FY14. /Jacob Groves

Lincoln-Chambliss Letter

On July 2, Senators Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) Chair of the Agriculture Committee and Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) Ranking Member of that Committee were joined by 35 other Senators on a letter asking EPA to exclude biomass emissions in their recently developed Green House Gas (GHG) Tailoring Rule. This letter is similar to the one that was sent on June 16 from 63 members of the House of Representatives. The Senators state in their letter that biomass utilization provides a carbon-neutral, clean energy source that should play a more significant role in our nation’s energy policy. Using woody biomass from public and private lands to produce clean, renewable energy helps improve forest health, creates critical jobs that cannot be exported, and helps reduce our reliance on foreign oil.

The Senators urged the Administration to expedite a review of the issues in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Agriculture to insure biomass can be used as a reliable source of green fuel. /Tom Partin

EPA Responds

On July 9, EPA Assistant Administrator Gina McCarthy responded to the House and Senate letters on the GHG Tailoring Rule. In the letter McCarthy stated that “We recognize the concerns you raise on the treatment of biomass combustion emissions for air permitting purposes. As stated in the final Tailoring Rule, we are mindful of the role that biomass or biogenic fuels and feedstocks could play in reducing Green House Gas (GHG) emissions, and we do not dispute observations that many federal and international rules and policies treat biogenic and fossil fuel sources of CO2 emissions differently.” The letter went on to state that the permitting burdens and costs that would be created under the statutory emissions thresholds, does not itself provide a rationale for excluding all emissions of CO2 from combustion of a particular fuel, even a biogenic one. However, McCarthy did state in her letter that “the fact that in the Tailoring Rule EPA did not take the final action one way or another concerning such an exclusion does not mean that EPA has decided that there is no basis for treating biomass CO2 emissions differently from fossil fuel emissions under the Clean Air Acts programs. The Agency is committed to working with stakeholders to examine appropriate ways to treat biomass combustion emissions and to assess the associated impacts on the development of policies and program that recognize the potential for biomass to reduce the overall GHG emissions and enhance U.S. energy security.”

McCarthy said that her agency “is committed to working with stakeholders to examine appropriate ways to treat biomass combustion emissions, and to assess the associated impacts on the development of policies and programs that recognize the potential for biomass to reduce overall GHG emission and enhance U.S. energy security.”

In the letter McCarthy also outlines a “Call for Information” by EPA asking for stakeholder input on approaches to addressing GHG emissions from bioenergy and other biogenic sources, and the underlying science that should inform these approaches.

Call for Information

On July 15, EPA published in the Federal Register a “Call for Information” on how the agency should address biomass electric generation in the context of the Tailoring Rule. In the rule, EPA did not take action on a request from commenter’s to exclude CO2 emissions from biogenic fuels. Instead, EPA explained that the legal basis for the rule, reflecting specifically the overwhelming permitting burdens that would be created under the statutory emissions thresholds, does not itself provide a rationale for excluding all emissions of CO2 from combustion of a particular fuel, even a biogenic one.

The fact that the Tailoring Rule did not take final action one way or another concerning such exclusion does not mean that EPA has decided there is no basis for treating biomass CO2 emissions differently from fossil fuel CO2 emissions under the Clean Air Act’s PSD and Title V Programs. Rather, in finalizing the Tailoring Rule, the agency did not have sufficient information to address the issue of the carbon neutrality of biogenic energy. This Call for Information serves as a first step for EPA in considering options for addressing emissions of biogenic CO2 under the PSD and Title V programs as indicated above.

Interested parties are invited to assist EPA in the following: (1) surveying and assessing the science by submitting research studies or other relevant information, and (2) evaluating different accounting approaches and options by providing policy analyses, proposed or published methodologies, or other relevant information. Interested parties are also invited to submit data or other relevant information about the current and projected scope of GHG emissions from bioenergy and other biogenic sources. Comments are due by September 15 and can be submitted one of the following ways – mail: EPA Docket Center, Attention Docket OAR-2010-0560, Mail code 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460, fax: (202) 566–1741, or email: GHGBiogenic@epa.gov. / Tom Partin

Forest Planning Rulemaking

The Forest Service is making some progress in its forest planning rulemaking effort though they are behind schedule. The fourth national roundtable is being held July 28-29 in Washington, D.C. and is being attended by AFRC staff. The intent of this fourth roundtable is to discuss the “draft” concepts of what will be in the new rule. These “draft” concepts were to be released prior to the roundtable to provide time for review. The agency has on its website a proposed three-part planning framework as follows: (1) Assess conditions and stressors on the National Forest System unit and in the context of the broader landscape; (2) Revise or amend land management plans based on the need for change (identified through assessments); and (3) Monitor to detect changes on the unit and across the broader landscape and to evaluate the ability of management actions to produce desired outcomes.

The agency also intends to develop “draft” concepts around key components including the all-lands approach, public involvement, species diversity, water resources and watershed health, ecological restoration and other critical issues discussed at the earlier regional and national roundtables. At this time, the only “draft” concepts available for review is the all-lands approach and collaboration. The framework and “draft” concepts can be viewed on the agency’s website at http://fs.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsinternet/!ut/p/c4/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os3gjAwhwtDDw 9_AI8zPyhQoY6BdkOyoCAGixyPg!/?ss=119987&navtype=BROWSEBYSUBJECT&cid=STELPRD B5180288&navid=091000000000000&position=Feature*&ttype=detail&pname=Planning%20Rule-%20Home.

If you have any interest in these and would like to submit comments, you can do so on the agency’s blog for the rulemaking process. AFRC asks that if you do so, please share your comments with us as well so we can compile them and submit as appropriate. /Chuck Burley Viability Rule in Law?

On July 15, the House Natural Resources Committee passed legislation that included a provision to codify the viability rule. The Consolidated Land, Energy, and Aquatic Resources (CLEAR) Act of 2009, introduced by Representative Nick Rahall (D-WV), was promoted in response to the BP Gulf oil spill, but included many provisions unrelated to offshore oil production, including the provision to codify wildlife management standards for the Forest Service and BLM. The proposed provision would require management to maintain sustainable populations of native and desired non-native species, and monitoring programs to determine the status and trend of species. The standards to be established by this bill are similar to those in the Forest Service 1982 planning rule. It has been demonstrated over the years that this is a nearly impossible standard to achieve.

Representative Tom McClintock (R-CA) offered an amendment to strike this section (Section 228) from the bill during Committee markup but that failed 21-24. However there were three Democrats that voted to strike the section and others that voiced concern with the viability rule provision to Democratic leaders in the House. The legislation is expected to reach the House floor for a vote this week and it appears that the viability rule provision will be removed prior to being brought up for a vote. /Chuck Burley

CFLR Projects Submitted

On June 18, Agriculture Secretary Vilsack announced the 15 members of a newly formed advisory committee to evaluate Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration (CFLR) proposals. The Forest Landscape Restoration Act required the committee to be created to prioritize landscape-scale restoration projects designed to benefit local economies. The Act authorizes $40 million a year for these projects but Congress only appropriated $10 million in FY10. The committee met July 20-22 in Washington DC to review candidate projects for funding.

At least one project was submitted by each of the 10 regions. Region 6 submitted five projects: Colville National Forest CFLR Project; the Deschutes Skyline Landscape Project; the Lakeview Federal Stewardship CFLR Project (Fremont-Winema National Forest); the Malheur National Forest CFLR Project; and the Tapash Sustainable Forest Collaborative (Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest).

Region 5 submitted four projects: Dinkey Restoration Project (Sierra National Forest); Sage Steppe and Dry-Forest Restoration on the Modoc Plateau; Middle Fork of the American River Restoration Project (Tahoe National Forest) and Upper South Fork Salmon River CFLRP Proposal (Klamath National Forest). Region 1 submitted two proposals: Clearwater Basin Collaborative CFLRP Proposal and Southwestern Crown of the Continent Collaborative CFLRP Proposal. The full list of 31 projects can be viewed at http://www.fs.fed.us/restoration/CFLR/regionalproposals.shtml.

The Act calls for a maximum of 10 projects nationally each year and allows each region to have no more than two projects per year. The purpose of the CFLR program is to encourage the collaborative, science-based ecosystem restoration of priority forest landscapes. The President’s proposed 2011 budget seeks $40 million to be devoted to the projects. To date, the committee’s selections have not been announced. /Ann Forest Burns

Grizzly Challenge Halts Logging

In a ruling issued June 29, Montana Federal District Court Judge Donald Molloy halted logging on three timber sale projects on the Kootenai National Forest (Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Bradford). The judge concluded that the Forest Service had violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by not adequately analyzing the likely impact of the projects on grizzly bears and failing to explain why its cumulative effects analysis was done at the bear-management, rather than the forest level. In addition he found the agency violated the Endangered Species Act by failing to explain why helicopter logging within the Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone would not adversely affect the bears and failing to obtain an incidental take statement from the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

The three proposed projects would have treated over 10,000 acres, and include both timber harvesting and hazardous fuels reduction. The ruling is likely to have additional impacts on the Kootenai National Forest timber sale program as the forest attempts to find replacement volume to meet this year’s targets. /Ann Forest Burns

OESF Comment Period Closes

On July 15, the public comment period for the Olympic Experimental State Forest (OESF) HCP Planning Unit/DEIS closed. This culminated almost two months of public outreach including meetings and hearings to provide input on the management of this important forest plan. Public hearings were held in Port Angeles and Forks and had very sparse attendance, with only AFRC and local trust beneficiaries present. Attendees represented those party to the June 2006 Settlement Agreement that resolved the challenge to DNR’s 2004 ten-year sustainable harvest calculation that directed the DNR to create the OESF Forest Plan.

AFRC submitted comments that supported the Landscape Alternative. We feel that the increased harvests on the OESF, while still maintaining essential riparian ecosystem functions and Northern Spotted Owl/Marbled Murrelet habitat, will be beneficial for those companies who source wood from the Olympic Peninsula and others who utilize timber grown in Washington State, but also for the surrounding communities and the trust beneficiaries. The Landscape Alternative gives AFRC members increased certainty in timber supply on the Olympic Peninsula in the future, making it possible for them to continue making investments in milling operations and to remain a valued employer for the citizens of local communities.

AFRC feels that DNR has fulfilled their SEPA responsibilities. However we expect both the FEIS and an OESF Forest Plan to meet the terms of the 2006 Settlement Agreement when the FEIS is released. The current timeframe is to have the FEIS completed by the end of the year. /Jacob Groves

Lakeview Sustained Yield Unit

The Lakeview unit on the Fremont National Forest is scheduled for a regular periodic review this year. The forest is holding a public hearing next month in Lakeview. The reevaluation will include analysis of economic, social and political conditions and trends within the unit and the area. For more information, direct your browser to http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/frewin/projects/lfsu/documents/20100713-lfsu-reevaluation.pdf /Chuck Burley

Bombers Phasing Out

The fleet of slurry bombers being used by the Forest Service for initial attack on wildfires now numbers 17. At their peak, the number of these fixed wing, multi-engine aircraft was 44. The remaining fleet of 17 tankers is due for replacement in 2012, however the $2.5 billion price tag for updating the fleet isn’t available in these days of budget cutbacks, and other options are going to have to be looked at. Without the large multi-engine tankers, the Forest Service will be looking to heavy lift helicopters and singleengineair tankers to fight fires on initial attack and in the back country. Agency people believe the use of helicopters and smaller planes will still give them the initial attack capabilities they need, although some lawmakers are worried there is too much risk by not replacing the tankers. The first big scale back of slurry bombers occurred in 2005 following the deadly crashes of at least two of the big fixed wing aircrafts. /Tom Partin

Welcome Bell Timber & Boise, Inc.

AFRC is pleased to welcome Bell Timber and Boise, Inc. as new members. Bell Timber is the fiber procurement arm and wholly owned subsidiary of the over 100 year old, family held Bell Lumber & Pole Co., a leading seller of wooden utility poles. Bell Lumber & Pole has facilities in New Brighton, Minnesota; Barron, Wisconsin; Shingleton, Michigan; Conway, Washington; Oldtown, Idaho and Vernon, BC. Bell Timber is a purchaser of Washington DNR timber, buying both timber sale contracts and log sorts. It also purchases logs from private landowners in Washington, Oregon and Idaho, as well as throughout the Lake States and from British Columbia. Bell’s log yard at Conway, Washington was reopened in 2007 after being mothballed for several years. Tom McKenzie is their Washington timber manager.

Boise, Inc. has joined AFRC with their Wallula, Washington paper mill. The company has over 4,000 employees and is headquartered in Boise, Idaho. They operate five paper mills, five corrugated products plants, a corrugated sheet feeder, corrugated sheet plant, two distribution facilities, and a transportation business. They also manufacture packaging products and papers including corrugated containers, containerboard, label and release and flexible packaging papers, imaging papers for the office and home, printing and converting papers, newsprint, and market pulp.

We look forward to both companies participation in all of AFRC’s activities. /Tom Partin

A recent story by National Public Radio (NPR) about meat and the evolution of the human brain has devolved into a fight between meatheads and pea brains.

The story, posted on the NPR website on August 2, now has some 280 comments – many of them of the “Are too! Am not!” variety. The basic premise of the story is that our brains evolved when primitive man switched from a raw plant-based diet to a cooked meat-based diet. “What we think is that this dietary change around 2.3 million years ago was one of the major significant factors in the evolution of our own species,” the story quotes anthropologist Leslie Aiello.

As we got more, our guts shrank because we didn’t need a giant vegetable processor any more. Our bodies could spend more energy on other things like building a bigger brain. Sorry, vegetarians, but eating meat apparently made our ancestors smarter — smart enough to make better tools, which in turn led to other changes, says Aiello.

Sounds logical enough – as evolution theories go. But, boy – did it strike a raw nerve with the vegetarians and vegans who commented on the piece. Here’s a good example: “Bull @#$# The meat industry has done it again. WHAT MADE US REALLY SMARTER, wasn’t meat, but the exercise and tactical hunt that humans did to survive and the tools that was created to kill.” Hmm – so it wasn’t meat that made us smarter but the skills it took to get the meat to eat? Still seems like an argument that it was the meat that made the mind.

Many of the comments focused on smart people in history who were allegedly vegetarians. Some claim Plato, although there is no solid proof of that. Others cited Da Vinci, but he may also have been homosexual – so maybe that means being gay makes you smarter too? Then there comes a disagreement as to whether or not Hitler was a veg – maybe, maybe not.

But, really, who cares? The point of the article was not that eating meat makes us smarter, it was that the hunting and cooking of it could theoretically have led to an evolution of larger brains in Homo sapiens. It’s pretty obvious from some of the comments that eating or not eating meat today has nothing to do with intelligence.

Black-tailed deer hunters asked to return a deer tooth to aid population study

SALEM, Ore. — ODFW biologists are asking black-tailed deer bowhunters to send the department a tooth from the animal they harvest. ODFW staff uses the teeth to determine the age of the animals, which is used in population modeling efforts.

Accurate population estimation is a key goal of the Black-Tailed Deer Management Plan which was adopted in 2008 by the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission to strategically manage black-tailed deer populations consistent with available habitat and other land uses.

“These teeth are critically important to us. Black-tailed deer are not easy to count. They often move in the dark, in dense cover,” said Don Whittaker, ODFW Ungulate Species Coordinator. “The more information we have about the age of the deer in the population, the better decisions we can make about hunting seasons and the health of the species.”

Last year, bowhunters harvested almost 2,000 black-tailed deer.

“To get an accurate population estimate, we really need to get teeth from all of this year’s animals,” said Whittaker.

The age of deer can be accurately determined by analyzing tooth roots. Removing and returning a tooth to ODFW is relatively easy and in no way harms the taxidermy mount. Postage-paid envelopes and instructions are available at license sales agents or ODFW offices.

In six or seven months, hunters will receive a postcard showing the age of their deer.

The Columbian black-tailed deer is one of two sub species of mule deer in Oregon. The species is found from the Pacific Ocean coastline east to the forested portions along the east side of the crest of the Cascades. The Black-Tailed Deer Management Plan is available on ODFW’s website.

Activists Share Anti-Agriculture Agenda at Conferences

August 16, 2010 – Animal agriculture was under attack at the Animal Rights 2010 Conference and the Humane Society of the United States-hosted Taking Action for Animals, two of the nation’s largest animal rights events. Both meetings were held in Washington, D.C. during July 2010.

AR 2010 and TAFA brought together more than 1,000 activists to discuss the political strategy of the animal rights movement. Speakers at both conferences provided participants with tactics to target the animal agriculture industry through demonstrations, litigation, and ballot initiative campaigns. Animal activist leaders taught attendees how to utilize social media tools to fundraise and share videos from undercover operations.

While HSUS launched TAFA in 2005 in an attempt to distance itself from the violent tactics embraced by many attendees of the AR 2010 conference, the core messaging and highly emotional images used to promote veganism at both events was eerily similar.

Both conferences encouraged attendees to prey on the fears of the unknowing public by spreading misinformation about the way today’s farmers and ranchers care for their animals. As evidence of the animal rights movement’s focus on animal agriculture, some of TAFA’s most popular sessions included “Advocating for Animals in Congress” and “Building a Better Future for Farm Animals.” AR 2010 workshops included “Understanding the Mentality of Meat,” “Conducting Investigations,” and “Marketing Our Message.”

Key Quotes from AR 2010 and TAFA Speakers:

“We should distinguish our message from less meat, because what we want is no meat.”
- Carrie Packwood Freeman, Activist and Professor at Georgia State University
AR 2010

“Owning animals is the equivalent of slavery.”
- Hope Bohanec, In Defense of Animals
AR 2010

“I have no problem with breaking and entering, destroying labs, burning buildings, and busting open cages.”
- Camille Hankins, Win Animals Rights and spokesperson for Animal Liberation Front
AR 2010

“The point at which society moves towards our views is a point where we are significantly closer to the vegan world that we are all working toward.”
- Bruce Friedrich, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
AR 2010

“The dog they walked last night is no different than the pig they ate for breakfast.”
- Jerry Cesak, Radio Personality and Proponent of HSUS’ ‘Yes on Prop 2′ Campaign
TAFA

“Any state with an initiative process is on our radar.”
- Jennifer Hillman, Humane Society of the United States
TAFA

“I dream of a vegan world – that’s where I want everything to go.”
- Gene Baur, Farm Sanctuary
TAFA

While HSUS’ leadership continues to assert that animal rights- not animal welfare- is a mainstream issue, supporters of the movement seem divided. Many of its loudest proponents also advocate for violence, destruction of property, and abolition of pets – tactics that the American public would certainly not condone.

Most people do not understand the real – and devastating – consequences that animal rights activists are steadily pushing for. As shown by the attendance and content of the AR 2010 and TAFA conferences, the movement is relying more on legislation and less on shock tactics to gain momentum. The threat to animal agriculture is real and cannot be ignored by the industry.

Bryan Monell, an activist who has frequently obtained illicit employment at farms and research facilities in order to obtain undercover video footage, mocked the work of both farmers and researchers during his presentation at AR 2010.

“These people are rednecks and we are superior,” he said.

An appearance by photographer and reality television personality Nigel Barker added to the party-like atmosphere of TAFA. Speakers at both meetings compared their cause to the civil rights and women’s’ rights movements. The crowd was enthusiastic and receptive, wildly cheering on vocal opponents of animal agriculture including Wayne Pacelle, Paul Shapiro, Miyun Park, Gene Baur, and many others.

Both events provided vegan meals to attendees. In contrast to the lifestyle choices advocated for by the conference speakers, 97 percent of Americans enjoy meat, milk, and egg products as part of their diet.

The full text of the Alliance’s report on both animal rights meetings is available on the Members section if its website at http://www.animalagalliance.org. For more information, contact Communications Coordinator Sarah Hubbart at shubbart@animalagalliance.org.

The Animal Agriculture Alliance, a 501c (3) non-profit organization, is a broad-based coalition of individual farmers, ranchers, producer organizations, suppliers, packer-processors, private industry scientists, veterinarians, and retailers. The Alliance’s mission is to communicate the important role of animal agriculture to our nation’s economy, productivity, vitality, and security and that animal well-being is central to producing safe, high-quality, affordable food and other products essential to our daily lives.

Agriculture a ‘Choice’ Career Choice

If you’re a movie buff, you’ll recall the career advice shared with young Benjamin Braddock in the late 1960s movie The Graduate. “Plastics,” young Benjamin was told. Today, there is a good chance the giver of that advice, Mr. McGuire, would be proposing another up-and-coming career field – “Agriculture.”  While U.S. unemployment figures hover near 10 percent, colleges and universities are placing their agriculture graduates into jobs at higher rates than ever before.

The director of ag career services at Iowa State University, Mike Gaul, says the latest placement data on agriculture graduates from his college shows 98.5 percent of them have jobs within a year of graduation, and 76 percent of those with ag business degrees already had a job in hand when they picked up their diplomas this spring. Similar numbers are seen in agriculture placement data coming from Penn State, Florida and Colorado State University.

The view is further supported by a 2010 USDA report, Employment Opportunities for College Graduates in Food, Renewable Energy and the Environment, 2010-2015. The study says there is an expected shortfall of new graduates that will be needed in the next three to five years.

Overall, the study says there will be 54,400 open positions generated each year, but only 29,300 students will be graduating with agriculture-related degrees in those fields. The shortfall of ag-knowledgeable students will likely be made up with students in allied fields such as biology, engineering, health sciences and business. Think of the leg-up graduates will have if they’re familiar with agriculture and the issues that directly affect it.

Parents of students heading to a college or university this fall, might want to direct them to this report. Agriculture truly is a career that is enjoyable, rewarding and in-demand.

There is a misperception that agriculture jobs are limited to hands-on production of livestock and crops, and that those jobs are low-paying and have no advancement opportunities. When you look at the job opportunities and the related salaries, you’ll see agriculture offers so much more.

Interested in developing or preparing nutritious foods? Agriculture has a job for that. Want to make an impact on environmental issues ranging from forestry to climate to aquaculture? Agriculture has a job for that. Do engineering or developing computer applications get your juices flowing? Agriculture has jobs in those areas, too.

If you’re worried that too many students will rush to this area, and the market will be flooded in two to four years,relax. Enrollment in ag-related majors is the choice of only one-half of 1 percent of all students headed to college this fall.

So, look around at friends and family headed to college this fall, pull them off to a corner and give them this one-word piece of advice. Agriculture.

Dal Grooms, a new contributor to Focus on Agriculture, is a native of the Midwest, where she writes about rural and agricultural issues.

Rural Property Owners – Your Property Taxes May Be Too High, Even If Your Property Qualifies For Farm Tax Deferral

One of the least understood areas of Oregon law is real property taxation.  Most Oregon property owners dutifully pay their property taxes (either directly to the county or through monthly payments to an escrow account established by their lender) without having any idea of whether their taxes are accurate.  For at least one group of Oregon property owners, this is an expensive mistake.

As a result of Oregon’s land use planning system, nearly all private property in Oregon’s rural areas is zoned for exclusive farm use (EFU) or forest use.  In many cases, the EFU zoning on a parcel prohibits any use of the property other than farm use – the property cannot be used for a use that would generate some greater value to the property owner than farming.

But what happens when the property cannot be farmed profitably?  In other words, what if the cost of farming the property exceeds the profit that could potentially result?

Under our land use laws, that’s tough.  EFU property that can’t be farmed profitably must retain its EFU zoning, even if the property owner can demonstrate that a different use of the property would result in the property having some value.  The end result is that the property becomes unproductive open space, generating no economic value to the property owner.

When property cannot be put to any economic use, its real market value should be close to zero.  It won’t be zero, because property that can’t be currently used for any economic use will still have speculative value – a value based on the idea that the zoning of the property might change at some point in the future in a way that would allow the property to be used productively.

But most property owners in EFU zones do not challenge the real market value that the county sets for their rural property.  Why?  Because most EFU zoned property is in farm tax deferral, which results in low property taxes.   When property is in farm tax deferral, the amount of property taxes assessed is not based on the property’s real market value.

In many cases, however, even the reduced property taxes paid by EFU property owners are too high.  The Oregon Tax Court has held that real property that cannot be put to any profitable use (use that generates a net profit) has no value for property tax purposes.  In that case, the property taxes should be zero.

Further, the Oregon Tax Court has held that a county cannot consider speculative value of a property when determining its real market value.  That means that even though a property that cannot be used for any profitable use (through farming, forestry, commercial use, industrial use, as a residence etc.) may still have a real market value based on its speculative use in the future, those speculative uses cannot be used to assign a real market value for property tax purposes.

If you are the owner of unused EFU property, and the property cannot be put to any profitable use or used as a homesite, you should carefully review your next property tax statement – if the county places a real market value on the property, ask the county assessor to explain how the county arrived at that value, and be prepared to file an appeal of that determination.

There are two reasons to file an appeal – first, a finding that the real market value of the property is zero will result in their being no property taxes owed for the property.  Second, a finding that the real market value of the property is zero may give rise to a claim for just compensation against the State of Oregon.

The United States Supreme Court has long held that if a regulation or series of regulations deprives a parcel of land of all its value, the owner of that land is entitled to just compensation for the lost value.  A finding that the real market value of a parcel is zero is a key determination in this type of case.

So EFU property owners – take a close look at your next property tax statement.

By Mike Mehren

I was lucky enough to attend a meeting where the researchers from Eastern Oregon Ag Research Stations in Burns and Union presented the studies that they are working on, those that have been recently completed and studies that are in progress. We, Oregon in particular, are very very fortunate to have this group of men and women working on all phases of range livestock nutrition, livestock temperament, livestock grazing management, and livestock genetics Studies are done in conjunction with fish and wildlife scientists, as well as researchers specializing in desert and forest plants. They have studied the relationship between livestock grazing and wildfire. If there is to be a range livestock industry in the future, the research they are conducting will provide answers needed to stay in business.

Dr. Bohnert and his coworkers reported on research that identified the effect that cow body condition has on the performance and health of her calf. When cows being fed low protein meadow hay were supplemented during the last 90 days of pregnancy, they had more calves, and calves that weighed more at weaning than cows that were thin. We know that thin cows run the risk of calving difficulty. Calves from cows in poor condition are more likely to succumb to scours and young calf diseases. Cows that are thin will not breed back as well as cows in moderate condition.

Immediately after weaning is an excellent time to improve the body condition of those cows that are thin. It is much easier to put some weight on the cows early in the season and maintain that body condition than it is to try and put weight on cows during the winter or early spring just before calving.

Preliminary research by Dr. Bohnert and associates indicates that cool season grasses are digested and used differently than warm season grasses. Warm season grasses are found in mid-America and parts of California, while cool season grasses predominate in the Northwest. If you look at a table of feed values you will find many warm season grasses and cool season grasses that are virtually identical in nutrients such as crude protein, TDN, calcium, and phosphorus. However, when low protein warm season grass is supplemented with protein, the cows eat more warm season grass. When a cool season grass is supplemented with protein ,the intake of the grass doesn’t increase, however the cow digests the grass more efficiently. It also appears that urea may be used more efficiently as a protein supplement for cool season grass. For years I have contended that a protein supplement for beef cows on low protein hay, straw, or range should be made mostly of vegetable protein such as soybean meal or canola meal. It looks like most of this protein can come from urea. This would be a huge savings in the cost of protein supplements. These studies will lead to further investigation on the differences between warm season and cool season grasses. All of the previous studies have been conducted using warm season grasses and may not be applicable to our native grasses. We have been using information regarding warm season grass protein supplements. It doesn’t appear to be appropriate. This information has lead Dr.Bohnert’s group to investigate how frequently protein needs to be supplemented during the winter. We know now that protein does not have to be fed daily. It can be fed two or three times a week with no loss in performance. Could this interval be increased to three times per month protein supplement feeding? How much money would that save? How much urea could be used, and what amount would be optimum. Answers to those questions have the potential for huge economic impact on the cost of maintaining a cow throughout the year.

Cattle behavior is another fascinating area of research. Nobody wants wild cattle that will attack when man or machine gets too close to them. Sometimes we put up with them because they bring a calf home every year. How do their calves perform once they are weaned? Is their reaction to stress any different than a gentle calf? How do they get
along with other calves once penned? How well do they convert feed to gain? Are there any differences in carcass value that can be related back to the behavior of the animal? The relationship of nutrition and behavior is a new area of research that has the potential to affect the way we select replacements and achieve superior performance, and a more desirable carcass Dr. Cooke and his co-workers continue to provide us with new information in this area.

Miss Brummer and Dr. Mueller looked into mineral content of forages and mineral concentration in the blood of cattle herds in central Oregon. They noted differences in mineral content of forages at different locations and at time of year. Selenium was the one mineral that was deficient in all forages tested. They also noted differences in copper and zinc content. If you ask any livestock nutritionist he or she will tell you that there is no one perfect mineral supplement. The mineral content of the forage and the mineral needs of the cow change during the year, and from one part of the ranch to another. Many ranches already recognize this and take forage tests, herd blood tests, and then have minerals made to meet their specific needs.

Feed testing was an important part of this study and I hope it is an important part of your grazing and supplement plan. In the field I notice either of two extremes. In one, nothing but trace mineral salt is ever supplemented. In the other, a mineral with a high level of phosphorus is fed during the entire year. The animals may require more than trace minerals during calving and breeding at least. Many grasses in mountain pastures and irrigated pastures don’t need supplemental phosphorus, so it becomes an unnecessary expense.

Several years ago Dr. Tim Delcurto and his associates conducted a series of studies on cattle grazing near streams. These studies included supplement strategies to move cattle away from the stream. Stock water relocation was also used to move livestock away from the stream. Grazing season for optimum use of the forage without stream bank damage was another area examined during these experiments. They also looked at the relationship between cattle and spawning salmon. In these studies cattle, water, salmon, forage, and wildlife were all observed and measured to determine how they interact. We
definitely need more research showing how beef cattle interact with their environment, be it desert, forest, or meadows. Very little research is conducted where scientists from many different disciplines work together on a project.

I do have one negative comment. These experiment stations and others around the state have taken quite a hit from Oregon State. They have been advised that they must raise 50% of their budget from outside sources. I don’t know if other entities within the College of Agriculture have been asked to do this. One thing that might help would to have all administrators raise 50% of their budget from outside sources. At least this would level the playing field. As ridiculous as this may seem, it makes about as much sense as the plan that is in place.

Thanks to the Oregon Beef Commission for supporting cattle research at the experiment stations. They recognize the value of this research.

Michael J. Mehren, Ph.D. is a livestock nutritionist who just fell off his soap box somewhere near Hermiston, OR. He can be contacted by Email at mehrens@eotnet.net.

Oregon Ag responds to the Spotted Wing Drosophila

So far this summer, Oregon’s fruit crops have made it to the marketplace in good shape despite fears that a tiny fruit fly would have a huge negative impact. A combination of an effective monitoring program and management tools for growers seems to be keeping the Spotted Wing Drosophila in check. But the real test is about to begin as the late season fruit crops ripen.

“I think we are at a critical juncture,” says Dan Hilburn, administrator of the Oregon Department of Agriculture’s Plant Division. “A year ago, it was fruit crops at the end of the season that were impacted by Spotted Wing Drosophila. This year, up to this point, the caneberries, blueberries, and cherries that have made it to market have been high quality and without problems. But we don’t know if that’s because of the efforts being made by growers and others, or if the insect is always going to be an end-of-the-season problem.”

The message to consumers is that local fruit they find in the marketplace is clean, good tasting, and nothing to worry about. The message to growers is to stay vigilant.

Working with the industry are four major players- ODA, Oregon State University, the US Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service (ARS), and Peerbolt Crop Management, a private consulting and insect scouting service located in Oregon. The State Legislature’s approval earlier this year of $225,000 for research, monitoring, and education reflects the seriousness of the pest.

In entomological shorthand, Spotted Wing Drosophila is known as SWD. Its formal name of Drosophila suzukii suggests a foreign species, which is exactly the case. But this is an foreign pest- an invasive species that first showed up in the Pacific Northwest late last summer and early fall. A few growers lost significant amounts of fruit last year because of the insect. What makes SWD especially troubling is that its larvae infest ripe and ripening fruits, unlike most fruit flies that only bother rotting fruit. Once the larvae hatch and begin feeding, the fruit completely disintegrates. It’s almost impossible to detect damaged fruit until it is too late. The insect is capable of producing 10 generations of pests per crop growing season. Eradication is not a viable option. Control is the best chance Oregon has in protecting crop yields and maintaining markets.

“We are getting to the point now where we will learn whether last year was a fluke and whether we have the tools to manage it throughout the season,” says Hilburn.

At the core of those tools is effective monitoring. Traps have been placed in berry fields and fruit tree orchards throughout the state to detect any growing SWD populations. If detections increase as the fruit gets ripe, growers are taking protective measures- primarily applying pesticides.

“Both conventional and organic growers have been monitoring and taking precautionary steps when needed,” says Hilburn. “There are many pesticide products available for use against SWD, including some that have been certified for organic use. These products are effective.”

That has been one of the important lessons learned since last year.

“Spotted Wing Drosophila is relatively easy to control using standard chemical control programs,” says Vaughn Walton, OSU horticultural entomologist.

Between the private consulting firm and OSU Extension, there are eight scouts setting and monitoring the traps. Crops surveyed include strawberries, raspberries, blackberries, blueberries, cherries, peaches, figs, and grapes. More than 100 Oregon fruit growers have participated in the survey.

“These growers have been involved, proactive, and responsible,” says Tom Peerbolt, who runs the consulting firm. “They have overwhelmed meetings to get the information and contacts they needed. They have cooperated in the scouting program and have kept on top of the situation. We are still in the midst of the response, so no one is claiming ‘mission accomplished’ yet. But I’m cautiously optimistic that we will make it all the way through the year with minimal commercial field losses.”

The story is a little different for small growers, U-pick fields, and home gardeners. These are sites where there have been some SWD hot spots this summer. One common denominator seems to be growing a succession of crops in one operation. Those who produce strawberries, caneberries, and cherries- for instance- appear to have a build up of SWD populations. Operations that do not clean off all the fruit from bushes and trees, or let dropping fruit lay on the ground, also seem to be at risk of higher overall insect populations, including SWD,

There is also a question about the impact wild fruit may have on harboring Spotted Wing Drosophila. Himalayan blackberries- a noxious weed in Oregon- are ripening and not necessarily under anyone’s control. It’s possible those blackberries could become a reservoir for SWD. Officials will be monitoring the situation.

The Oregon response to Spotted Wing Drosophila can only be given a mid-term grade at this point. But the marks are generally high, and those involved feel better than they did a year ago.

“Last year, I couldn’t imagine being where we are now,” says Peerbolt. “A year ago, I was visiting the affected fields, contacting entomologists at ODA, USDA, and OSU, and trying to figure out what the heck we were up against. It was pretty scary, to tell you the truth. Major crop losses were not only possible, but likely, in my view. But the work done by government, the land grant university, and the industry to build bridges, cooperate, and put a crisis management plan in place with minimal resources has been truly impressive.”

It may be September or October before the full impact of spotted wing drosophila in 2010 is assessed. It could end up being another of the many insect pests fruit growers deal with each year. The bug will be manageable, but must be given close attention in order to ensure high quality fresh fruit in the future.

For more information, contact Bruce Pokarney at (503) 986-4559.

Legislation Introduced to Tackle Sixth Circuit Permitting Problem

Agriculture leaders in the Senate and House have introduced legislation that would eliminate the need for additional permitting for pesticide or other crop protection product applications if they are performed within existing label requirements.

The question of permitting has become a serious concern for agricultural producers and a major area of work for agriculture advocacy organizations like NAWG since a Sixth Circuit Court ruling in early 2009.

Ruling the case of National Cotton Council of America v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Court concluded pesticide discharge is a point source of pollution subject to additional regulation under the Clean Water Act (CWA), meaning producers would need additional permitting for every crop protection application. In February, the Supreme Court declined to take the case on appeal, so the Sixth Circuit’s ruling stands as law despite being duplicative of existing regulation and fraught with unintended complications.

Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Ranking Member Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) announced last Friday they had introduced S. 3735 to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (known as FIFRA) such that any “plant pest, noxious weed or pest control activity” done in accordance with it would not require a permit under the Clean Water Act. In a press release, Lincoln explained the bill saying it is “very simple: as long as a producer is complying with FIFRA, then no Clean Water Act permit will be required.”

House Agriculture Committee Ranking Member Frank Lucas (R-Okla.) introduced companion legislation in his body this week.

NAWG is highly supportive of these measures and this week coordinated a letter of 18 major agriculture groups urging quick passage and offering any assistance in the legislative process.

“Adding a layer of additional requirements in the form of a CWA NPDES permit will create new costs and increase confusion regarding the use of these already heavily regulated products,” the groups told Lincoln and Chambliss. “Requiring CWA permits creates the potential for inadvertent, technical violations of federal law by pesticide users – with fines of up to $37,500 per day with no tangible benefits related to protecting water quality.”

NAWG and other agricultural groups have also been working coalition partners and officials at EPA and USDA to evaluate a proposed general permit formulated by EPA that is meant to streamline the regulatory process. That permit unfortunately left more questions than answers for producers, and NAWG will continue to work on both administrative and legislative tracks to find a solution to this problem.

To read the letter sent this week, please visit www.wheatworld.org/environmentalissues.