|
“There’s no limit to the number of
people, with no understanding of agriculture who want to tell
you how you need to conduct your business,” says Matt Byrne,
Executive Vice President of the California Cattlemen’s
Association (CCA). He’s
referring to the ever-present proponents of state and federal
laws and regulations that would defray property rights, increase
the cost of doing business, jeopardize livelihoods and plumb
make life for producers more difficult than pulling a
porcupine’s teeth.
The issues are as familiar from
year to year as they are common among states in the West:
property rights and preservation, water and air quality,
wildlife preservation and management, labor and liability.
That’s a short list of state issues. Jump over the federal fence
and there’s everything from packer ownership of cattle before
harvest, to mandated subsidies for ethanol production, to
disaster relief, to labeling cloned beef.
Really, the main cog of evolution
from year to year is that special interest groups aiming at the
livestock industry on these fronts continue to grow in number
and diversity, says Byrne.
In some ways, you never really win, as much as you continue to
guard against defeat.
“It’s a tug-of-war,” says Byrne. “You know the other side isn’t
leaving, so we’d better not, either.”
The Marathon
Consider the Williamson Act in California. In simple terms, this
law provides funding to counties to reduce taxes on agricultural
property. According to Byrne, 16 million acres in California
benefit from this law currently; 30 million acres in the state
are owned and managed for cattle production. CCA and others
fought long and hard to preserve funding for the Williamson Act
during last year’s portion of the state’s current two-year
legislative session.
But, California is facing a
significant budget deficit. The governor already has made cuts
and called for a special session. So, Byrne says there will be
plenty of discussion about what other programs might be cut, as
well as what new user fees might be imposed.
Likewise, 2008 is supposed to be the off-year in Oregon’s
biennial legislative process. But Bill Moore, president of the
Oregon Cattlemen’s Association (OCA) explains a special session
has been convened there, too. Though it’s not yet on the agenda,
he wouldn’t be surprised to see the water legislation
re-introduced, which OCA and others fought to beat back the last
go-round.
“One of our biggest concerns for
Oregon producers is legislators pushing for extreme measures in
water law,” says Moore. The proposed legislation OCA helped
defeat would have mandated measuring every drop of water
consumed in the state for all uses. That’s obviously fraught
with plenty of downside potential to current users and
water-right owners, not the least being the next logical step of
charging for every drop consumed.
Mine, Yours and Ours
One way or another, property rights are often at the heart of
legislative efforts that make producer’s blood boil the most.
That property can be land.
OCA has just emerged from a tough fight over a measure in that
state that effectively allows governmental takings without just
compensation. Called Measure 49, proponents claimed it added
clarity to a related Measure (Measure 37) which became law a
couple of years ago. Measure 37, which OCA supported, requires
local and state governments to compensate private land owners
for reductions in fair market value that result from land use
regulations imposed by those governments, which restrict
property use. Opponents say it paved the way to…well, pave and
develop anything in sight. So, two years later, along comes
Measure 49, which effectively undermines the rights provided by
Measure 37, restricting what property owners can do with their
property.
If that sounds confusing, imagine
how Oregon cattle producers feel. Moore says everyone, including
the legislators, is trying to figure out what that means.
That property can be your
equipment.
“A new rule in the works this year will significantly alter
emission standards for on-road diesel engines, from semis
potentially down to farm pickups, depending on how it’s
applied,” says Byrne. CCA worked with other groups to obtain an
exemption for agricultural equipment when a similar rule for
off-road diesel engines was enacted.
That property could even be
your pets.
CCA banded together with others to successfully oppose a law
proposed last year that would have required state residents to
spay and neuter their dogs. It would make as much sense as
telling you what you can do with your horse…oops, they already
have by closing the horse packinghouses.
Everybody Loves the Wild
For example Moore says OCA helped craft guidelines for wolf
preservation and management that was amenable to
ranchers—broadening the language for legal takings before
finding a wolf with a calf in its mouth—but also consistent with
what wildlife groups had been promulgating. Quick as a wink,
those groups decided to push for more extreme measures. Keep in
mind, these regulations are aimed at non-essential wolves
migrating to Oregon from Idaho, yet they’re protected fully by
the Endangered Species Act.
Along the same lines, Moore
explains, “Cougars have been and continue to be on the front
burner for a lot of us.” Based on the Cougar Management Plan
adopted by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), a
minimum desirable cougar population for the state is set at
3,000. The current population estimate is 5,100 and growing.
“Besides concerns from livestock producers, it’s getting to be a
major public safety issue,” says Moore.
Far as that goes, Moore says
another simmering battle revolves around federal agencies trying
to wrest more control away from state officials. “Up to now,
it’s been accepted that states are the chief authority, except
when it comes to migratory populations.”
The same game of one-upmanship exists with water, too.
“We’re opposing efforts to
re-define the federal definition of water,” says Byrne (so is
OCA). Currently it is defined as navigable waters. Some folks
want to remove that from the definition, meaning federal
agencies would have control over all water everywhere. Beyond
the fundamental question of state rights versus federal, imagine
the confusion of having state and federal agencies with
different rules. Come to think of it…
That’s on top of the ongoing
wonderment about both the quality and quantity of water; who has
it and who can use it, says Byrne. Especially after last year’s
drought in California, which saw many cattle producers exit the
business in full or in part, it’s especially top-of-mind.
Currently Byrne explains there’s a standoff between Republicans
and Democrats over whether to emphasize building more water
storage and infrastructure or doing more with water
conservation.
Self-Help
Consequently, producers in these two states are investing more
in research that will help them refute emotion with facts via
their representative organizations.
In fact, though unpopular with
some, OCA lobbied for and received an increase in state beef
check-off assessments. All states are required by Federal law to
collect a $1 per head check-off—state’s can keep up to 50 cents
per head, and must remit at least 50 cents to the Cattlemen’s
Beef Promotion and Research Board. Oregon increased its
check-off levy in 2005 to $1.50 per head (collection of the new
amount began in late 2006), doubling the amount that can be kept
in the state. Part of those added funds are going toward
research.
“If some of this would have been done 20 years ago we wouldn’t
be fighting some of these court battles we (the industry) are
now,” says Moore. “This is a producer-funded way to get some
good things done, rather than fight battles after the fact.
We’re optimistic about what these added funds can help us do.
For instance, some of the
research being conducted demonstrates the benefits of cattle
grazing to both wildlife populations and to the land itself.
“No one I know wants to go
camping in an area after there’s been a catastrophic wildfire,”
says Moore. “By taking 30-50 percent of the fine fuels off these
allotments we can reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires by
70-80 percent.”
As illustration, Moore explains
there were three wildfires in his area near Unity, OR last
summer, all started by the same storm. Two were on private land
that he leases and grazes. Those fires were contained to fewer
than 500 acres burned. The other fire started on private land,
too, country that hasn’t been grazed for years. Approximately
55,000 acres went up in smoke within 24 hours. “The only reason
it stopped then is because it started raining,” says Moore.
“Grazing, like logging is heavily
regulated. There might have been some abuses in years past, but
those are few and far between today, if they exist at all. We
just have to do a better job of letting the world know that
we’re producing the safest beef in the world, under the toughest
regulations, and bringing benefit to wildlife and the
environment while we’re at it,” says Moore.
Incidentally, Moore points out
some other state associations in the West are looking to
increase their check-offs, too. As well, a similar move is afoot
on a national level.
“This is money we can use to take back our destiny, rather than
place our destiny in the hands of the public,” says Moore.
Another OCA self-help programs
include working with other groups to found a legal center at the
Lewis Clark College School of Law School. Besides serving as a
resource to users of the state’s natural resources, OCA and
others are working with the center to offer classes to law
students that address issues from the user’s perspective.
“It’s just another way to be more
proactive,” says Moore.
CCA members also fund research to
provide a scientific basis to support industry practices. For
example, CCA is working with the University of California, Davis
on a study to measure air emissions from feedlot cattle. It’s
one more effort to help guard against regulation under
California’s plan to make that state’s climate change
regulations the toughest in the world.
As well, three years ago CCA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service formed the California Rangeland Conservation Coalition (CRCC).
It represents a partnership between agriculture,
environmentalists and government agencies that recognize a
common interest in protecting and preserving private rangelands.
A collaborative CRCC Resolution was signed by 78 organizations
as diverse as CCA, Defenders of Wildlife and Ducks Unlimited.
“We have good stewards in this state. We want to make sure they
and what they do are recognized by the public,” says Byrne.
More the Merrier
Byrne emphasizes organizations like CCA and OCA have a duty to
keep members informed about issues that impact them, and to
speak on their behalf, collectively, but local, state and
federal lawmakers also need to hear directly from constituents
how a proposed law or regulation will impact them personally.
“It’s important that every member
of the industry be involved in the organizations that represent
their interests, whether you own one acre and one cow, or
thousands of acres and a thousand cows,” says Byrne. “There is
no substitute for active members of an industry serving as their
own advocates.”
In other words, personal contact
between producers and their elected officials continues to be
key.
“It can have a big effect. On a
lot of issues I think legislators are overwhelmed with form
letters from environmental and activist groups. But our
legislators tell us it’s important for them to hear from
agriculture producers; numbers count,” says Moore.
“Like it or not, I think
individual producers need to be involved with their trade
organizations, whichever ones they believe represent their
interests,” says Moore. “Not everyone has the time to go to
their state capitol or to Washington, D.C., but their voice can
still be heard... People need to understand that when they’re
part of an organization like OCA, we’re making comments on
behalf of the membership. So, OCA is making comments
representing 2,500 members; 2,501 would be even more powerful.”
Collectively, an organization
representing lots of producers can ring loudly. Plus, it can be
magnified when organization that share mutual interests band
together to fight for and against laws that impact the business
of their members.
It still goes back to
individual initiative, though.
“One thing I’m trying to do individually is to get an audience
with organizations that aren’t closely linked to the livestock
industry but have a considerable amount to lose if the livestock
industry is lost,” says Moore. Think in terms of groups like the
Chamber of Commerce in key urban areas. He adds, “The more
members can let us know what’s important on local issues, the
more we can address those, too.”
“Every additional voice is useful
and helpful,” says Byrne. |
