Oregon County Considers Banning GMO Crops page 8

Spring 2014  Volume 14,  Issue 2 Idaho Rancher Celebrates 70 Years in Sheep Business – page 4 Oregon County Considers Banning GMO Crops – page 8 Ag...
Author: Jonah Tucker
7 downloads 0 Views 6MB Size
Spring 2014  Volume 14,  Issue 2

Idaho Rancher Celebrates 70 Years in Sheep Business – page 4

Oregon County Considers Banning GMO Crops – page 8

Agra-PAC Supports Candidates – page 21

The Ag Agenda

Optimism: A Farmer’s Stock-in-Trade By Bob Stallman

President American Farm Bureau Federation

When w e think of farmers we don’t necessarily think of romantics, but don’t let their typical reserve in showing emotions fool you. A farmer’s heart

skips a beat when he or she sees a newborn calf, the budding of fruit trees and the sun rising higher each day. The Future’s So Bright Livestock producers face sunnier prospects than they have had in years. Cattle and hog prices are at record highs. Milk, poultry and egg prices also are good. The sector is

poised to see a positive supply and demand balance. On the crops side, USDA announced at the end of March that farmers intend to plant nearly 92 million acres of corn this year, even though prices have fallen. That is a drop from the last couple of years, but it would be the fifth-largest corn acreage since 1944. SoySee STALLMAN, page 7

The President’s Desk

GMO Controversy - All Hat and No Cattle By Frank Priestley President Idaho Farm Bureau Federation

When n e w s emerged that voters in 27 states would see ballot initiatives this year related to genetically modified organisms (GMO) in food, some members of Congress took notice.

In an attempt to head off what could result in a patchwork of vastly different laws and regulations from one state to the next, a bipartisan group in Congress including Reps. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.), G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Jim Matheson (D-Utah) and Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) recently introduced H.R. 4432, The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act. This measure will make

it clear that the Food and Drug Administration should be the nation’s foremost authority on the use and labeling of foods containing genetically modified ingredients.

One of the bigg e s t challenges for the Idaho Far m Bu reau h a s been the relentless assault by the government, courts, and activist groups on pri-

vate property rights. In the 1960s, the problem became acute through growing federal regulatory control over farms and businesses and the rise of the environmental movement. Regulations to protect endangered species, wetlands, and public lands were greatly expanded by loose interpretations of the law, overzealous bureaucrats, and the prodding of environmental groups.

The Sagebrush Rebellion, a 1970s revolt against public lands policy in the West, was also closely associated with the loss of property rights. Federal bureaucrats and environmental activists often showed little regard for the concept of private property. There are no greater defenders of private property rights than farmers and ranchers and the

The GMO labeling ballot initiatives and legislative efforts that many state lawmakers and voters are facing are geared toward making people wrongly fear what they’re eating and See PRIESTLEY, page 11

Inside Farm Bureau

Celebrating Idaho Farm Bureau’s 75th Anniversary “The Sagebrush Rebellion” By Rick Keller CEO Idaho Farm Bureau Federation

2

Idaho Farm Bureau Quarterly / SPRING 2014

See KELLER, page 10

Volume 14, Issue 2

IFBF OFFICERS

President ................................... Frank Priestley, Franklin Vice President ..................................Mark Trupp, Driggs Executive Vice President .............................. Rick Keller

Contents Features

BOARD OF DIRECTORS Bryan Searle ............................................................Shelley Mark Harris ................................................ Soda Springs Chris Dalley ....................................................... Blackfoot Dean Schwendiman ........................................... Newdale Danny Ferguson ........................................................Rigby Scott Steele ..................................................... Idaho Falls Gerald Marchant .................................................. Oakley Rick Pearson ................................................... Hagerman Rick Brune............................................................Hazelton Curt Krantz ............................................................ Parma Cody Chandler....................................................... Weiser Tracy Walton ....................................................... Emmett Marjorie French .............................................. Princeton Alton Howell ................................................ Careywood Tom Daniel ............................................... Bonners Ferry Carol Guthrie ......................................................... Inkom Luke Pearce ............................................. New Plymouth STAFF Dir. of Admin. Services ....................... Nancy Shiozawa Dir. of Organization............................... Dennis Brower Commodities & Marketing Assistant ........... Peg Pratt Member Services Assistant . ................... Peggy Moore Public Relations Assistant ....................... Dixie Ashton Dist. I Regional Manager .......................... Justin Patten Dist. II Regional Manager ............................. Zak Miller Dist. III Regional Manager .................. Charles Garner Dist. IV Regional Manager ..........................Brody Miller Dist. V Regional Manager ...................... Bob Smathers Dir. of Governmental Affairs ...............Russ Hendricks Asst. Dir. of Governmental Affairs ... Dennis Tanikuni Energy/Natural Resources . ..................... Bob Geddes Director of Public Relations ............. John Thompson Video Services Manager ............................ Steve Ritter Broadcast Services Manager .................... Jake Putnam Office Manager, Boise ................... Julie Christoffersen Member Services Manager ........................ Joel Benson Printed by: Owyhee Publishing, Homedale, ID

IDAHO FARM BUREAU QUARTERLY USPS #022-899, is published quarterly by the IDAHO FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, 275 Tierra Vista Drive, Pocatello, ID 83201. POSTMASTER send changes of address to: IDAHO FARM BUREAU QUARTERLY P.O. Box 4848, Pocatello, ID 83205-4848. Periodicals postage paid at Pocatello, ID and additional mailing offices. Subscription: $4 a year included in Farm Bureau dues. MAGAZINE CONTACTS: Idaho Farm Bureau Federation EDITOR (208) 239-4292 • ADS (208) 239-4279 E-MAIL: [email protected] www.idahofb.org

Cover: Employees of Soulen Livestock move their flock from winter range to a ranch near Letha in Gem County where they will be sheared prior to lambing.

Rancher Phil Soulen has seen a lot of challenges and changes in the sheep industry over the past 70 years.

PAGE 4 The controversy over genetically modified foods is heating up. Voters in 27 states will see ballot initiatives this year. One in Oregon could have ramifications here in Idaho.

PAGE 8

Farm Bureau announces Friend of Agriculture recipients

PAGE 20 How to help protect your home from wildfire

PAGE 22 Farmland: The Movie set for release in theatres

PAGE 27 Farm Bureau Women’s Leadership Committee sponsors Art Contest

Focus on Agriculture

PAGE 12 U.S., Canadian officials set to reopen Columbia River Treaty.

PAGE 30

PAGE 14

DEPARTMENTS The Ag Agenda: Bob Stallman............................................................. 2 The President’s Desk: Frank Priestley.............................................. 2 Inside Farm Bureau: Rick Keller......................................................... 2 University of Idaho Forestry............................................................. 18 Crossword: Weights & Measures.................................................... 24 Farm Facts............................................................................................. 28 Classifieds ............................................................................................ 42

Photo by Steve Ritter

Idaho Farm Bureau Quarterly / SPRING 2014

3

Phil Soulen, owner of Soulen Livestock in Weiser, has been raising sheep in Idaho for 70 years. Photo by Steve Ritter

Soulen Livestock Going Strong After Seven Decades Phil Soulen of Weiser stands on the edge of a massive herd of sheep.  He’s the first to admit a true love of spring because for more than 70 years of his life, this season means shearing sheep, baling wool and renewal. Soulen is an Idaho sheep industry icon. He’s a member of one of the last great sheep families that survived decades of disastrous markets, shrinking rangeland and finicky consumers. On this day he watches his son Harry gather sheep for shearing. “I love these sounds, especially the sheep bells and they’re calling out to us,” said Soulen, “You know they’re talking now, they want something to eat and they’re all blabbing back there because they haven’t been fed. These sheep here, we corralled up and put under cover last night so we could start shearing this morning. All they 4

want is to get sheared, eat and head out.” Soulen stands tall with his cane, grinning from ear to ear. When he’s with the sheep he says, memories are never far away. Soulen’s father bought the Clinton sheep company out of Weiser during the depression back in 1929.   “The Swift Company told Dad the Clinton outfit was up for sale,” he said. “They were a big operation with more than 10,000 head of sheep. This was part of the ground they had, along with 30,000 acres in Washington and Payette counties. Dad put up $20,000 and his brother-in-laws put in $25,000. Swift financed the balance and it went from there. “We’ve been at it ever since.” Soulen says the sheep business has changed dramatically from those early days.

Idaho Farm Bureau Quarterly / SPRING 2014

“But we haven’t changed the way we do things,” he said. “There are so many other influences on our business and it’s pretty tough to operate these days. For one thing they took away our permit on the Payettee National Forest for 3,000 sheep because of the bighorn sheep issue.” That Payette National Forest decision centered on the pasteurella virus.  “That’s all phony baloney, we don’t give pasteurella to those bighorns, they have their own problems, but the Forest Service went and did it, cut us back. Our case will be heard in court. We’re suing the Forest service so we’ll see what happens. They never heard us out. The bighorn don’t run in the high country where we run in the summer,” said Soulen. Even though Federal Court handed down a decision favoring the Forest Service, Sou-

“We vaccinate them, ear tag the ewes and try to get them turned around here by the end of March,” said Harry. The shearing operation transforms the sheds at Soulen Livestock into a bustling village. There’s laundry on makeshift clotheslines, satellite dishes on RV campers and the constant sound of bleating sheep. The shearing boss is Cliff Hoopes from Wyoming. According to Soulen, Hoopes has sheared sheep for more than 20 years. His crew is not only the best but one of the last operating in the Intermountain region.

Harry Soulen looks over part of his flock after the animals where sheared this spring near Emmett. Photo by Steve Ritter

len says the show must go on. “The prices are decent today, we have a good lamb market, the wool market is down from last year but we can live with it the way it is.”

Canyon and we ended up here at Letha,” the younger Soulen said. “We started shearing the 7th of March and finished up after 10 days.”

Harry Soulen, Phil’s son and heir to family business can’t be burdened with court decisions today, he’s busy trailing sheep.

Despite a hearty demand for wool and lamb, Soulen Livestock was forced to downsize because of the court decision. They used to run more than 10,000 head. They now run just 7,000 sheep and a couple hundred head of cattle.

“We started moving the end of February from the Birds of Prey area in south Ada County, through Caldwell north to Black

“One of the problems we have here in the U.S. is that there aren’t enough shearers around as there used to be,” said Phil. It’s kind of like sheepherders, there’s not many sheepherders either, so most of these shearers come in from overseas.” The shearing crew is a lean, seven-man operation. A crowded semi-truck trailer serves as a mobile shearing shed. Inside the music booms over the buzz of clippers. Each shearer clips with astonishing speed and agility. In just a minute they can strip off the wool with impressive speed and precision. The massive pile of wool is pushed out of a chute where it’s packed in 400 pound bales. “Cliff Hoopes is American,” explains Harry Soulen. “He has a Wyoming kid that’s just starting out, but the rest are foreigners. We’ve got guys from New Zealand, a guy from Australia and even a young man from Japan of all places.” The Atmosphere in shearing camp is part old world and part United Nations, all bound together by wool. Soulen says that in shearing camp you’ll always find two lines of sheep, the wooly side running to the shed and the clean, sheared line running from the shed. Both lines stretch nearly as far as the eye can see. “We try and start trailing for the lambing range in late March. These ewes will start lambing about the first of April and after that it’s off to summer range,” said Harry. The nation’s sheep industry has been

A shearing crew takes the wool off prior to turning the sheep out to lamb at Soulen Livestock near Emmett. Photo by Steve Ritter

See SOULEN LIVESTOCK p.6

Idaho Farm Bureau Quarterly / SPRING 2014

5

Soulen livestock Continued from page 5 plagued for decades by drought, predators, high input costs, low market prices, dwindling labor and stiff foreign competition. Idaho ranks 7th in national wool production and makes up 6 percent of the U.S. market. Idaho ranchers will send approximately 180,000 sheep to spring range this year. Bands of sheep will graze from the Teton Mountains in the east to the Hells Canyon area in the west.  This year the Soulens are comforted by a strong trending market. Lamb prices are up and wool prices are expected to make a healthy comeback. “Manufacturers have found what we’ve known for decades, wool keeps you warm in winter and cool in summer,” said Phil. “It’s simple as that. We’re excited we’ve

weathered droughts, terrible markets and picky eaters, now we’re getting a second look and we’re making money again.” For the last six decades Harry Soulen has watched the markets. “Yes, we’re looking at real good lamb market right now,” said Phil. “It looks to stay strong for a while if some other factors don’t screw it up. On the wool side, there’s a shortage of wool worldwide, but the market’s been flat since January. The dollar is strong against foreign currencies and that’s depressed our prices.” Domestic wool prices are down 15-20 percent from where they were in December, but projections show the market will bounce back this summer. Harry Soulen plans to hold onto the wool until the market

improves. He says it’s a classic cyclical pattern and they’ll wait it out. “As far as the business is concerned the lambs are still worth more than the wool,” said Phil. “Both are important products we’re producing. No doubt about it, it’s the best fiber there is, because it wicks moisture away.” The Soulens will have their hands full the rest of the spring, moving the sheep across three counties to the summer range, then back again to complete the familiar cycle - the same cycle their family has followed every year since 1929.  The Soulens like many other ranchers before them set their clock by the seasons of the sheep.

Workers gather sheep prior to shearing at Soulen Livestock. The family ranch will turn out 7,000 head to lamb this spring and then trail them to summer pasture on the Payette National Forest. Photo by Steve Ritter 6

Idaho Farm Bureau Quarterly / SPRING 2014

STALLMAN

Continued from page 2

age since 1944. Soybean and cotton plantings are set to increase, and projected wheat plantings are down just 1 percent from last year. There is reason to feel good about the prognosis for agriculture well beyond this year. The pace of innovation in farming and ranching is tremendous. The application of information technology promises ongoing productivity gains. Approvals of biotech traits, such as new herbicide-resistant corn and soybeans, are moving forward. Agricultural companies have as many exciting products in the pipeline as ever. People may not think of hightech when they think of agriculture, but they should. Youth Wasted

Isn’t Always on the Young

Each year, Farm Bureau surveys about 1,000 young farmers and ranchers from across the country. In March we released the 22nd annual survey, which found that 91 percent of young people in agriculture are more optimistic about farming than they were five years ago. An equal percentage say they expect to be lifelong farmers. Just as promising, 88 percent say they would like to see their children follow in their footsteps. That is reason for all of us to feel hopeful, because the nation will need new crops of farmers and ranchers to keep growing our food.

People may not think of high-tech when they think of agriculture, but they should. Of course, we all lean toward a feeling of optimism when we are young and “invincible.” The possibilities seem endless; the threats, easily conquered. However, farmers, even young ones, see things a little differently. They are optimistic, but they are also pragmatic. Even in the spring, they remain mindful of the challenges they face, such as the growing list of federal regulations that increase the cost and complexity of farming. Availability of labor, water and— especially for younger producers—land are also concerns. Even so, farmers and ranchers of all ages and types are looking across the land as the weather warms and the days lengthen, and they are thinking that if the weather is right their yields just might set a new record. If prices are good, they might buy a few more acres or fix up the old barn. It takes hope and courage to begin a new farming season in anticipation of a plentiful harvest and prices good enough to sustain the farm and the family for another year. With credit (or apologies) to Alexander Pope:  Hope springs eternal in the heart of the farmer and rancher.

Farm Bureau Members Pay Less For Choice Hotels!

A $40 room will be closer to

$32 A $60 room will be closer to

$48 A $90 room will be closer to

$72 1.800.258.2847

Farm Bureau Discount Code

00209550

advanced reservations required

Idaho Farm Bureau Quarterly / SPRING 2014

7

Farmers are starting spring work all over Idaho this month. New technology in agriculture resulting from genetic modification of crops has become a hotly-contested topic in several states where new laws are being considered. Photo by Steve Ritter

Voters to Decide on GMO Labeling in 27 States By John Thompson

trucking and several other industries.

last year.

Although they have already failed in two states, voter initiatives that would require labeling of food derived from genetically modified crops, are expected on ballots in 27 states this year.

Opponents, including farmers and ranchers, companies that have pioneered genetically modified crops, and the food companies that use the ingredients are concerned the issue could snowball causing an increase in the cost of food and problematic regulations with different requirements for different states.

“We’ve got a number of states that are attempting to put together a patchwork quilt of food labeling requirements with respect to genetic modification of foods,” said Pompeo. “That makes it enormously difficult to operate a food system. Some of the campaigns in some of these states aren’t really to inform consumers but rather aimed at scaring them. What this bill attempts to do is set a standard.”

Advocates believe it’s only a matter of time before labeling is required, while some members of Congress are attempting to head off the state by state, initiative-driven cycle of implementing laws that may not be consistent with each other. Idaho will not have a ballot measure this year that attempts to label genetically modified food but voters in Jackson County, Oregon will decide whether to ban all GMO crops in the county. Jackson County is an important area for GMO sugarbeet seed production. If upheld, the measure could limit sugarbeet seed availability. Idaho farmers plant nearly 200,000 acres of sugarbeets every year. The crop is a mainstay across southern Idaho providing thousands of jobs on farms and in manufacturing, 8

Kansas Rep. Mike Pompeo, and Georgia Rep. G.L. Butterfield have introduced legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives that would create a nationwide, voluntary GMO labeling program. In a recent editorial the two lawmakers argue that a 50-state patchwork of labeling laws could increase the cost of food by 30 percent. The Accurate Food Labeling Act or HR 4432, makes it clear that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is the nation’s foremost authority on the use and labeling of foods containing genetically modified ingredients. GMO labeling initiatives failed in California in 2012 and in Washington

Idaho Farm Bureau Quarterly / SPRING 2014

The issue of whether to label food that comes from genetically altered crops is complicated on several levels. There’s no question that people deserve to know what’s in the food they eat. Eating is one of the most intimate things we do. However, American consumers have been eating food that comes from genetically altered crops for over 20 years and according to several government sources, there are no differences between genetically altered crops and crops raised under conventional methods.

Next, if GMO labeling is assumed, how vigorous should it be? For instance if livestock consume GMO feed, should products such as meat and dairy products be labeled, even though there is no discernable scientific difference? In other words, we have no tests that can tell the difference between livestock products based on what those animals ate. That leads us to the ongoing discussion on USDA Organic labeling. There have been several instances of farms and vegetable packing plants misusing the organic label. Organic farms can’t feed GMO crops to livestock and then put an organic label on their meat and dairy products. However, many consumers may not be aware of the fact that USDA Organic regulations are fairly relaxed when it comes to cross contamination. Consider the following statement from the USDA Organic standards: “Any certified organic operation found to use prohibited substances or GMOs may face enforcement actions, including loss of certification and financial penalties. However, unlike many pesticides, there aren’t specific tolerance levels in the USDA organic regulations for GMOs. As such, National Organic Program policy states that trace amounts of GMOs don’t automatically mean the farm is in violation of the USDA organic regulations. In these cases, the certifying agent will investigate how the inadvertent presence occurred and recommend how it can be better prevented in the future. For example, they may require a larger buffer zone or more thorough cleaning of a shared grain mill. - See more http://blogs.usda.gov/2013/05/17/ at: organic-101-can-gmos-be-used-inorganic-products/#sthash.Cc7Ow1y2. dpuf Several farms and businesses in Jackson County, Oregon have signed on in support of the initiative while backers of the proposal have created a website called GMO Free Jackson County, and a group calling itself the Our Family Farms Coalition. Among the concerns they cite are cross-contamination and cross-pollination of other crops raised in Jackson County. The website also claims that GMO crops have not increased yields or reduced pesticide use – a denial of

Sugarbeets are one of several crops that have benefitted from genetic engineering. Over 95 percent of the sugarbeets planted this spring, nationwide, will be from seed that was genetically engineered to withstand herbicide applications. Farm Bureau file photo

the two major reasons for developing GMO technology in the first place. However, unlike the claims made by GMO labeling advocates during the campaigns in California and Washington, the Jackson County advocates have cited two research studies to back up their claims. With regard to cross-pollination, Tom Schwartz, executive director of the Beet Sugar Development Foundation in Denver, said the threat to Jackson County farms is minimal. Cross pollination is nature’s way of propagating seed. “In nature there is cross-pollination all the time depending on if plants are flowering and producing pollen,” he said. Swiss chard and red beets are the only crops that can cross-pollinate with sugarbeets, Schwartz said. GMO sugarbeet seed has been produced in Jackson County since the mid 1990’s. “To my knowledge looking through scientific literature there has never been an illness, accident or anything negative caused by GMO crops or biotechnology,” Schwartz said. “It’s been good for our industry and for agriculture not only in US but around the world. There are lots of negative state-

ments out there but I would ask anybody to give me scientific proof that any harm is being caused.” Schwartz added that about 98 percent of the sugarbeets planted in the U.S. are genetically modified. Three different companies produce sugarbeet seed in Jackson County. GMO corn, soybeans, cotton, alfalfa, canola, summer squash and papaya are also predominantly GMO crops in the U.S. and Canada. Some of the crops are engineered to resist pests, viruses and diseases, while others have been engineered to withstand applications of glyphosate, an herbicide. Schwartz said in sugarbeet production the use of GMO technology has reduced the amount of herbicide needed to bring the crop to market, because only two to three applications are needed during a growing season. Previously, sugarbeet farmers used both broadleaf and grass herbicides and as many as six applications during a growing season. The technology saves farmers money in chemical purchases, and reduces trips over a field which saves diesel fuel, reduces diesel emissions and saves on equipment maintenance. He added that glyphosate is See GMO LABELING, page 11

Idaho Farm Bureau Quarterly / SPRING 2014

9

KELLER Continued from page 2 organization that speaks for them, the Farm Bureau. Farmers spend a lifetime building a farm or ranch business, improving the land and conserving natural resources to pass on to the next generation. This is the essence of the family farm system in America and a loss of property rights is probably the biggest threat to its existence. Private property rights is a core belief of the Farm Bureau. Under the Kennedy administration, livestock grazing on public land was changed from the “dominant use” to the multipleuse concept. Farm Bureau had no problem with giving full consideration to recreation and other uses, but it geared up to offer strong opposition to expanded “little step by little step” control by the federal government. Farm Bureau viewed this as a bigger threat to livestock grazing than enactment of the Wilderness Act of 1964. In 1965, in a special message to Congress, President Johnson called for a “new conservation” based on preservation of beauty. Preservation, instead of traditional conservation, raised red flags among ranchers and others in the West because it was interpreted to mean virtually no use of public lands. With the redefinition of conservation to include preservation, the ascendancy of the environmental movement spelled trouble. Preservation values received greater attention by federal land managers. “Suddenly, the Old West has become the Angry West, a region racked by an increasing bitter sense of isolation and politi10

cal alienation,” said Newsweek magazine in November 1979, which made the Sagebrush Rebellion a cover story. In 1976, Congress passed the National Forest Management Act to strengthen the authority of the Forest Service. The Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLMPA) also was passed by Congress the same year to give the BLM a formal mandate for the multiple-use concept of land management. FLMPA also declared that public domain lands would remain in federal ownership unless disposal of a particular parcel was in the public interest. This decision provided impetus for organization of the Sagebrush Rebellion and was contrary to Farm Bureau’s own policy, “the federal government should grant the public land states equality of statehood by transferring ownership of all lands under the current management of the BLM to the states in which such lands are located.” Not only was the West not about to get its land back, but its water was in dispute too. When Jimmy Carter became president in 1977, western anger boiled over. The cavalier treatment accorded the public lands states by the Carter administration and Congress touched off the Sagebrush Rebellion. The first act of defiance was a bill in the 1979 Nevada legislature asserting the state’s authority over forty-eight million acres of land managed by the BLM. Wyoming went a step further and also laid claim to Forest Service lands within its borders. In 1981, Idaho fired its shot by proposing a bill in the Sagebrush Rebellion to claim title to 12 million acres of BLM lands in the state.

Idaho Farm Bureau Quarterly / SPRING 2014

The Idaho Farm Bureau was an early partner in the Sagebrush Rebellion movement, formally joining membership in April of 1980. Farm Bureau participated with the Sagebrush Rebellion organization and in sponsoring a meeting and fundraiser in Caldwell with national radio commentator Paul Harvey. Farm Bureau sent solicitation letters to all its farmer members encouraging contribution and support of the Sagebrush Rebellion. Farm Bureau staff was active in encouraging the legislature to take formal action. The Sagebrush Rebellion became less rebellious after Ronald Reagan became president in 1981. Reagan appointed James G. Watt as Secretary of the Interior, a key member of his crusade against onerous government regulation. The Reagan

administration encouraged a “good neighbor” policy and the efforts of the Sagebrush Rebellion gradually burned out, but sparks would surface from time to time. Although the Sagebrush Rebellion quietly hibernated, there is an ever growing dissatisfaction with the heavy-handed measures of the federal land agencies. Under current conditions, it will take little to reignite the flames of the Rebellion again. Farm Bureau remains vigilant in supporting the equal-footing doctrine and insisting on the passage of legislation to establish a deadline for complete transfer of public land back to state jurisdiction and management. The Idaho Legislature has a task force studying the issue this summer.

Priestley

Continued from page 2

ing and feeding their children. They undermine the public’s understanding of the many benefits of biotechnology in feeding a growing population – and keeping costs down. With the introduction of this legislation and the leadership of the bill’s sponsors, Farm Bureau looks forward to a national-level discussion that will affirm FDA’s role in assuring consumers about GMO safety and reduce the confusion that would result from a patchwork of state labeling initiatives. The legislation would require the Food and Drug Administration to review the safety of a product before it enters the marketplace, putting into law a process that is currently voluntary but widely used by food companies. The health agency would require mandatory labeling on food with genetically modified ingredients if they are found to be unsafe or materially different from foods produced without biotech ingredients. Manufacturers could still label their foods as being made without these specially engineered crops.

We can’t dispute the fact that consumers deserve to know what’s in the food they eat – in fact we applaud consumers willing to seek that information out. However, the hype created by various activist groups and bolstered by some retailers, including Whole Foods, is just that – hype. We encourage consumers to do their own research on this topic. What you will find is there is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GMO crops poses no greater risk than conventional foods. One good rule of thumb to keep in mind while shopping is to remember that according to the Grocery Manufacturers Association, up to 80 percent of the packaged foods on grocery store shelves comes from genetically engineered crops. It’s been that way for the last 20 years since GMO crops came to the forefront. If you want to avoid GMO’s, avoid processed food. It’s a simple solution. To take it a step further, join a Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) program or buy your produce at a farmer’s market.

As the nation’s largest general farm organization, the American Farm Bureau represents farmers and ranchers who use every type of agricultural production system to provide the safest food possible both here in the U.S. and abroad. The diversity of innovative options farmers and ranchers have in regard to how they grow our food is one of the reasons U.S. consumers enjoy a wide variety of foods that are also among the most affordable in the world. Farm Bureau supports all production practices – and common sense, science-based regulations – that ensure consumers are receiving safe and healthy food. But we will stand adamantly opposed to those who want to take tools and technologies away from America’s farmers and affordable choices away from consumers. It doesn’t require a cumbersome, mandatory labeling program to provide consumers with the information they need to eat healthy food. All that’s needed is some common sense.

GMO labeling Continued from page 9 a more benign chemical than many of the previously used herbicides which makes a safer workplace for farm employees. Farmers no longer need to cultivate fields for weed control, which results in further savings along with reduced erosion from wind and water. One of the scientific studies cited by GMO Free Jackson County is called “Failure to Yield, Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops.” It was produced by the Union of Concerned Scientists in 2009 and is available online. Its findings are based on research done on corn and soybeans only, planted only in test plots. In looking at the differences between conventional and GMO corn crops, the study concludes that corn yields were increasing by about one percent per year prior to the re-

lease of the genetically engineered corn. In some areas where insect pressure was high, the GMO corn out-performed conventional corn. In other areas it was about the same or sometimes slightly less. In some of the research that looked at herbicide resistant corn and soybeans, weeds were hand-pulled in the conventionally-grown crop plots and the outcome showed no measureable difference in yield. However, it’s important to note that with no weed pressure, the GMO corn would not be expected to outperform conventional corn. According to the study, test plots across the Corn Belt showed varying results. In many instances, genetically engineered corn outperformed conventional corn. The study also points out that yield is not the only possible advantage of genetically engineered corn. “Reductions in chemical insecticide

use is generally considered to be beneficial to farm workers’ health and the environment; this effect has been cited by farmers as being among the most important reasons to use genetically altered corn.” The study concludes with the following statement: “Given the tremendous resources being devoted to developing yieldenhancing and other new transgenic crops it would not be surprising if some of them succeed. It is therefore important to consider the contribution and potential of GE compared to other technologies and methods, such as organic and low-external input methods, which not only show promise for increasing yield but also provide other significant benefits. These benefits include better soil moisture retention, reduced water pollution and boosts to rural economies and farmers.”

Idaho Farm Bureau Quarterly / SPRING 2014

11

Focus on Agriculture Why Cheese is Essential to Ag Trade Growth By Melissa George Kessler Gorgonzola, asiago, parmesan, feta—all of these are common in grocery stores and restaurants, key components of salads, pasta dishes and cheesy bread products. They are also known as geographic indicators, words that reference the historical origins of the products themselves, though all have been produced outside of those home regions for generations. In many cases, makers of these products in other parts of the world have spent decades building their markets. But now the European Union is seeking restrictions on how these common names can be used as part of a trade agreement it is negotiating with the United States.

of dollars into the American economy each month. According to the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the agency that negotiates trade agreements on behalf of the U.S. government, 20 percent of farm income is from exports. This means that not only is ag trade essential to the continued health of our national economy, growing sales of farm products overseas will fuel the growth of rural economies here at home. Two very important trade negotiations are underway right now: talks with the EU known as the Transatlantic Trade and

If EU negotiators get their way, American producers of these cheeses and other food products would be forced to rebrand their goods and try to communicate to consumers why the foods they have traditionally enjoyed are suddenly called something different. This would have real reputational and financial costs; the U.S. Dairy Export Council estimates $4.2 billion worth cheese would be affected. It’s no news that U.S. agriculture is a trade powerhouse. The value of U.S. agriculture exports has exceeded $140 billion each of the past two years, with an overall positive trade balance that infuses billions 12

Idaho Farm Bureau Quarterly / SPRING 2014

Investment Partnership, and a separate set of negotiations with other Pacific Rim countries, known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Each of these agreements has the potential to vastly broaden markets for the goods produced by American farmers, ranchers and food companies. But to do so, negotiators must reach agreements that truly work for farmers, a goal that the cheese debate shows is more complex and delicate that it might appear on the surface. Misuse of geographical indicators is a perfect example of protectionism, and it’s a trade

barrier that simply must not be codified in any TTIP agreement meant to benefit American agriculture. Luckily, lawmakers overseeing the trade talks are having none of it. More than half of the U.S. Senate wrote negotiators last month and asserted they will reject any proposal that restricts these common names for cheeses. Unlike many industries in our increasingly service-based economy, agriculture results in tangible products—commodities, foodstuffs, fibers and fuels. American farmers and ranchers produce the best food in the world, and selling it to the 95 percent of people who live outside our borders is enormously beneficial for both sellers and buyers. But to be beneficial to agriculture, TTIP and TPP must address potential trade barriers like geographic indicators, sanitary and phytosanitary issues and even standards for genetically modified crops in ways that are productive and take into account the diversity of our agriculture industries and our consumers. When ag trade works, the value to U.S. producers and their customers is enormous. But if these critical issues aren’t addressed, an agreement could be just stinky cheese. Melissa George Kessler is a writer, editor and organization development consultant working in agriculture. 

Here’s to bringing up the sun. Here’s to muddy boots and grease-stained hands. Here’s to caring for this great land.

Here’s to protecting what you live for. We’re proud of our agricultural roots, and proud to be the insurance company so many families rely on to protect them from the unexpected. Here’s to protecting you, your family and your future.

www.fbfs.com FB10 (4-13)

ID-Here’sTo…(4-13).indd 1

4/15/14 11:07 AM Idaho Farm Bureau Quarterly / SPRING 2014 13

Renewal of Columbia River Treaty Could Open Pandora’s Box By Steve Stuebner Idaho Soil and Water Conservation Commission This year, Canadian authorities and the U.S. Department of State are considering the possibility of renewing the Columbia River Treaty, a long-held agreement that provides flood control benefits for Washington and Oregon communities on the banks of the Columbia River and hydropower benefits in the Pacific Northwest.

(BPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, those risks appear to be minimal, Yost said. The 2014 Idaho Legislature passed a measure, House Joint

If the treaty is renewed, both Canadian and United States interests are discussing the possibility of broadening the scope of the agreement to include issues such as “ecosystem-based function,” expanding flood-control operations, and other issues that Idaho legislators and Idaho Water Users Association officials find troubling. But Jim Yost, an Idaho member of the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, said the U.S. recommendations for renewing the treaty have been narrowed to the point where he does not see any threats to Idaho water rights or existing reservoir operations. “I don’t think there are realistically serious threats to Idaho water in this particular discussion,” Yost said in an interview. “Whenever you open up a treaty, there’s always the potential risk.” But after negotiations with Native American tribes, the Bonneville Power Administration 14

Idaho Farm Bureau Quarterly / SPRING 2014

Memorial No. 10 (HJM 10), sponsored by Rep. Gayle Batt, R-Wilder, that expresses concerns to Congress and the U.S. Department of State about the

potential pitfalls of expanding the scope of the treaty. “There’s huge implications if they go that direction,” Batt said. Norm Semanko, executive di-

rector and general counsel of the Idaho Water Users Association, testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources in November 2013, expressing similar concerns. “The purpose of the Columbia River Treaty is to reduce impacts from flooding and to increase power production,” Semanko said. “The U.S. has proposed “modernizing” the treaty to include ecosystem-based function as a third primary purpose of the treaty, while recognizing other additional elements such as future water supply, recreation and navigation needs. Irrigation is another important, authorized purpose, which should be expressly recognized in the final regional recommendation to the U.S. Department of State. “Ecosystem-based function should not receive greater recognition or stature under the treaty than ... the other long-authorized purposes in the basin, including irrigation, water supply, recreation and navigation,” he said. Background The Columbia River Treaty has been in effect since 1964. Flood control services were initially prepaid to Canada through 2024, at which time the treaty automatically continues as is, or can be renewed or cancelled. A ten-year notice (mid-September 2014) must be given if either the US or Canada wish to renew or cancel the treaty. If no notice is given the current pre-paid system converts to a “called upon” process where the US must request Canada’s assistance with flood control as needed, and pays for services as they are delivered. After the treaty was signed originally, it authorized the construction of three dams in Canada (Mica, Duncan and Keenleyside)

and one in Montana (Libby Dam) to provide flood-control for communities along the Columbia River in Washington and Oregon, while also providing more hydroelectric power capacity to the region. Altogether, the Canadian dams provide 15.5 million acre-feet of water storage. Libby Dam provides another 5 million acre-feet of storage. One acrefoot is equivalent to a football field or one acre of land flooded to the depth of one foot. The hydropower from the three Canadian dam projects provides approximately 483 average megawatts of electricity, an amount that provides enough power to heat 280,000 homes. That power was sold to a consortium of utilities in the United States in the mid-1960s for $254 million. When the dams were completed, the U.S. paid Canada $64.4 million for 50 percent of the present value of the expected benefits of flood-control along the lower Columbia River from 1968 to 2024.

of the treaty suggests strongly that flood control and power production should remain the primary purposes of the treaty,” Semanko said in his testimony to the U.S. Senate. “At the same time, it is appropriate to recognize ecosystem-based function as one of the important elements of a modernized treaty, or additional purposes authorized in the Columbia River Basin, as evidenced by the ongoing implementation of the Endangered Species Act and other environmental laws. “However, ecosystem-based function should not receive greater recognition or stature under the treaty than ... other long-authorized purposes in the basin, including irrigation, water supply, recreation and navigation.” Originally, some of the discus-

sions about ecosystem-based function did include expanding flood control operations to all of the dams and reservoirs in the Pacific Northwest, including those in Idaho, but the tribes eventually agreed to limiting flood control to eight projects that already provide that function, Yost said. Those projects include the four projects authorized by the treaty, as well as Dworshak, Brownlee, and Grand Coulee. If the treaty is to be modified to include other hydro projects on the Snake River, that modification would require congressional approval, he said. flow augmentation for salmon and steelhead was discussed region-wide at one point, but the tribes agreed to narrow that objective to additional water and change in the timing of releases

See COLUMBIA RIVER p. 35

Discussions on the terms of renewing the Columbia River Treaty have been going on for months. The Army Corps of Engineers and the BPA are leading the planning efforts for the United States. Yost said it was the Native American tribes that came up with the concept of adding “ecosystembased function” as a third element to the treaty negotiations, while many vested interests opposed that approach. “We already have many environmental laws that address those issues,” Batt said. “The obvious lack of any regional consensus regarding the inclusion of ecosystem-based function as a third primary purpose Idaho Farm Bureau Quarterly / SPRING 2014

15

16

Idaho Farm Bureau Quarterly / SPRING 2014

Idaho Farm Bureau Quarterly / SPRING 2014

17

Assistance for Idaho Family Forest Owners

Article and photos by Chris Schnepf Talk to any landowner who has become more active in managing their forest and one of the first things they will typically share is the value of assistance they received from professional foresters. Idaho doesn’t currently have any laws requiring forester licensing or registration, but the broadly accepted definition of a forester is a professional engaged in the science and profession of forestry who has completed a bachelor of science in forestry from a college program accredited by the Society of American Foresters (SAF). Many Idahoans immediately think “U.S. Forest Service” (USFS) when the word forestry is mentioned, but the USFS does not generally provide direct assistance to family forest owners. Their primary focus is on administering and managing national forests. Instead, Idaho family forest owners can get assistance from a combination of sources, all of whom have different things to offer. Forest Owner Associations 18

One of the best places to learn about forestry assistance is to ask your peer forest owners about their experiences. Forest owner associations are a great place to do that. The Idaho Forest Owners Association (IFOA - http://idahoforestowners.org) is Idaho’s primary organization advocating for Idaho family forest owners. The IFOA also hosts some educational events and partners with the Oregon and Washington forest owner associations to provide a quarterly magazine for members titled “Northwest Woodlands”.

The Idaho Department of Lands (IDL) In addition to managing state forests, the IDL (http://www. idl.idaho.gov/forestry/service) employs foresters who provide limited technical assistance to forest owners. The same personnel are also responsible for inspecting logging and other forest operations for compliance with the Idaho Forest Practices Act (FPA), much as the Idaho State Department of Agriculture staff adminis-

ter Idaho pesticide and water quality protection regulations for agricultural producers. Conservation Districts Conservation Districts (http:// iascd.org) are units of state government supervised by locally elected volunteers who guide natural resource conservation efforts in their community. Conservation districts sometimes have employees who assist landowners, but they usually rely on partner agencies to provide assistance.

The American Tree Farm System (ATFS - http://idahotreefarm.org) is guided both locally and nationally by family forest owners. Tree Farm works with variety of public and private organizations to provide assistance to family forest owners in the form of “Tree Farm Inspectors” - foresters who volunteer to inspect forests for compliance with Tree Farm certification standards and advise forest owners on approaches to meet those standards. University of Idaho Extension University of Idaho Extension (www.uidaho.edu/extension/ forestry) has the lead role in providing workshops, field days, publications, and other educational opportunities for forest owners. Extension also manages a volunteer peer-topeer learning program titled Idaho Master Forest Stewards, and provides continuing education opportunities for both loggers and graduate foresters.

Idaho Farm Bureau Quarterly / SPRING 2014

IDL foresters provide limited assistance and inspect forestry operations for compliance with Idaho laws.

Conservation Districts in northern Idaho often have tree seedling sales programs for family forest owners and sometimes offer additional grant-procured cost share funding for forest and watershed improvements. USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) The NRCS (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov) provides individual assistance related to conservation plans that include forests. The NRCS also administers cost share programs, notably the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) program, which is currently the only USDA forestry cost share program available to Idaho family forest owners. They often partner with IDL and consulting foresters who serve as “Technical Service Providers (TSPs)” with the agency. Industrial Foresters Forest product companies also employ foresters who regularly interact with forest owners while procuring logs for lumber mills. Many industrial foresters provide some management recommendations as part of those discussions; they usually give good advice, but remember they ultimately work for the mill, not for the forest owner. Many industrial foresters also serve as inspectors for the Idaho Tree Farm program. Consulting Foresters Assistance from state foresters and other public agencies is often limited. For example, in locations where sufficient numbers of consulting foresters work, the IDL may focus their management planning assistance primarily on landowners with less than 20 acres. If you want a professional forester who can be your legal representative (e.g., for a timber sale) or if you are interested in more comprehensive individualized services such as contracting tree planting or pre-commercial thinning; forest measurements; or timber sale preparation and administration, consider contacting a consulting forester. Consulting foresters are professional foresters who are available to the general public for a fee. Consulting foresters offer

Interacting with peers is a great way to learn about forestry resources.

many services, but they are particularly helpful when harvesting timber. Most family forest owners only sell timber once or twice in their lives and a harvest can dramatically improve or damage forest health and other values. Studies of private timber sales have found that consulting foresters’ fees are typically more than paid for by the increased profits returned to the forest owner, improved forest health and growth after the harvest, increased forest owner satisfaction with the job, and assistance on related issues (e.g. tax treatment of timber harvest income). Consulting forester fees vary with the service provided. A charge/ acre of a service, and hourly rate, or a percentage of a timber sale revenue are the most common arrangements. In choosing a consulting forester, be sure to check on degrees and other forestry credentials such as active membership in professional organizations and certification. Examples of these credentials include: Society of American Foresters (SAF - www. safnet.org): The national association of forestry professionals. Most members are foresters with four-year forestry degrees, but some are forestry technicians (with two-year forestry degrees) or employed in field closely allied with forestry.

Certified Forester (C.F. - http://www.safnet.org/certifiedforester): A certification (administered by the SAF) available to individuals who: have a bachelors degree, or higher, in forestry or a related degree with forestry coursework; have five years of professional forestry experience; adhere to state and federal forestry laws; and complete 60 hours of forestry professional development every three years.

The Association of Consulting Foresters (ACF - http://www.acf-foresters.org): The national professional association of consulting foresters. Among other requirements, members must have a four-year forestry degree (from an SAF-accredited school); go through a 1-3 year “candidate” period; complete a basic consulting forestry educational course; be principally employed as a consulting forester; have over five years of practical forestry experience; adhere to an ACF code of ethics; and complete 24 continuing education credits every two years. To the extent you make decisions based on these credentials, it is a good idea to confirm with these organizations that the person you are considering hiring has them. Active professional association See UI FORESTRY, page 39

Idaho Farm Bureau Quarterly / SPRING 2014

19

Coveted IFBF “Friend of Agriculture” Awards Announced The Idaho Farm Bureau Federation recently announced the names of legislators receiving the Friend of Agriculture Award based on voting records. Pictured left to right are Idaho Farm Bureau Vice President Mark Trupp, Senator Chuck Winder R-Boise, District 20, Rep. John Vander Woude, R-Nampa, District 22, Ada County Farm Bureau President Don Sonke, Rep. Thomas Dayley, R-Boise, District 21, and Idaho Farm Bureau President Frank Priestley. Photo by Steve Ritter

Every two years the Idaho Farm Bureau reviews the votes on selected bills that are important to our membership to determine which Legislators will receive the prestigious IFBF “Friend of Agriculture” award. This year six Senators and twenty Representatives will receive the coveted award, which is one quarter of all Legislators. We are extremely pleased to announce that seven legislators scored 100% on the selected bills over the past two years. They are: Representative Gayle Batt (R-Wilder) District 11 Representative Thomas Dayley (R-Boise) District 21 Representative Reed DeMourdaunt (R-Eagle) District 14 Representative Lawerence Denney (R-Midvale) District 9 Representative Thomas Loetscher (R-Iona) District 32 Representative Janet Trujillo (R-Idaho Falls) District 33 Representative John Vander Woude (R-Meridian) District 22 Other Legislators who qualified for the award this year by voting with Farm Bureau at least 95% of the time on the selected issues for the past two years include:

A total of 20 bills were used for our Legislative scorecard during the 2013 and 2014 Sessions. Bill subjects included private property rights, taxes, water, predator control, land management, transportation and other important issues.

Senator Steve Vick (R-Dalton Gardens) District 2 Senator Chuck Winder (R-Boise) District 20 Representative Linden Bateman (R-Idaho Falls) District 33 Speaker of the House Scott Bedke (R-Oakley) District 27 Representative Judy Boyle (R-Midvale) District 9 Representative Gary Collins (R-Nampa) District 13 Representative Brent Crane (R-Nampa) District 13 Representative Stephen Hartgen (R-Twin Falls) District 24 Representative Brandon Hixon (R-Caldwell) District 10 Representative Jason Monks (R-Meridian) District 22 Representative Paul Romrell (R-St. Anthony) District 35

Senator Steve Bair (R-Blackfoot) District 31

Representative Thyra Stevenson (R-Lewiston) District 6

Senator Jim Guthrie (R-McCammon) District 28

Representative Jeff Thompson (R-Idaho Falls) District 30

Senator Dean Mortimer (R-Idaho Falls) District 30

Representative Julie VanOrden (R-Pingree) District 31

Senator Steven Thayn (R-Emmett) District 8

Representative JoAn Wood (R-Rigby) District 35

Frank Priestley, President of the Idaho Farm Bureau stated “We really appreciate those Legislators who take the time to study the issues and make informed decisions, especially when it comes to agricultural issues. Each of these Legislators has earned our thanks and appreciation for their outstanding support of Idaho agriculture and Idaho Farm Bureau policies.” 20

Idaho Farm Bureau Quarterly / SPRING 2014

Please show your support for these “Friends of Agriculture” as you vote on May 20 in the primary election, and again on November 4 in the general election. Full voting record results of all legislators are available on our website at idahofb.org under the Capitol Reflections heading.

Idaho Farm Bureau Announces Support for Legislative Candidates The Idaho Farm Bureau operates a Political Action Committee named Agra-PAC. The purpose of the PAC is to financially support state legislative candidates who are philosophically aligned with Farm Bureau policies to aid in their election. Individual Farm Bureau members and county Farm Bureaus contribute to the PAC and county Farm Bureaus recommend which candidates the PAC should support. The legislative candidates that Agra-PAC has financially supported for the 2014 primary race include: Legislative District Position 1 Representative 2 Senator 2 Representative 2 Representative 3 Senator 3 Representative 4 Senator 4 Representative 5 Senator 5 Representative 5 Representative 6 Senator 6 Representative 7 Senator 7 Representative 7 Representative 8 Senator 8 Representative 8 Representative 9 Senator 9 Representative 9 Representative 10 Senator 10 Representative 11 Senator 11 Representative 11 Representative 12 Senator 12 Representative 12 Representative 13 Senator 13 Representative 13 Representative 14 Senator 14 Representative 14 Representative 15 Senator 15 Representative 15 Representative 20 Senator

Name George Eskridge Steve Vick Vito Barbieri Ed Morse Bob Nonini Ron Mendive John Goedde Kathleen Sims John Carlson Cindy Agidius Caroline Troy Dan Johnson Thyra Stevenson Sheryl Nuxoll Shannon McMillan Paul Shepherd Steven Thayn Terry Gestrin Lenore Barrett Monty Pearce Howard Rynearson Judy Boyle Jim Rice Brandon Hixon Patti Anne Lodge Gayle Batt Christy Perry Todd Lakey Robert Anderst Rick Youngblood Curt McKenzie Brent Crane Gary Collins Marv Hagedorn Mike Moyle Reed DeMordaunt Fred Martin Lynn Luker Patrick McDonald Chuck Winder

City Dover Dalton Gardens Dalton Gardens Hayden Coeur d’Alene Coeur d’Alene Coeur d’Alene Coeur d’Alene Moscow Moscow Genesee Lewiston Lewiston Cottonwood Silverton Riggins Emmett Donnelly Challis New Plymouth Payette Midvale Caldwell Caldwell Caldwell Huston Nampa Nampa Nampa Nampa Nampa Nampa Nampa Meridian Star Eagle Boise Boise Boise Boise

20 20 21 21 22 22 22 23 23 23 24 24 24 25 25 25 26 26 27 27 27 28 28 28 29 30 30 30 31 31 31 32 32 32 33 33 33 34 34 35 35

Representative Representative Senator Representative Senator Representative Representative Senator Representative Representative Senator Representative Representative Senator Representative Representative Representative Representative Senator Representative Representative Senator Representative Representative Senator Senator Representative Representative Senator Representative Representative Senator Representative Representative Senator Representative Representative Senator Representative Representative Representative

Joe Palmer James Holzclaw Cliff Bayer Tom Dayley Lori DenHartog John Vander Woude Jason Monks Bert Brackett Rich Wills Pete Nielsen Lee Heider Lance Clow Stephen Hartgen Jim Patrick Maxine Bell Clark Kauffman Steve Miller Don Hudson Dean Cameron Scott Bedke Fred Wood Jim Guthrie Ken Andrus Kelly Packer Roy Lacey Dean Mortimer Jeff Thompson Wendy Horman Steve Bair Neil Anderson Julie VanOrden John Tippets Marc Gibbs Tom Loertscher Bart Davis Janet Trujillo Linden Bateman Brent Hill Dell Raybould Danny Ferguson Paul Romrell

Meridian Meridian Meridian Boise Meridian Nampa Meridian Rogerson Glenns Ferry Mountain Home Twin Falls Twin Falls Twin Falls Twin Falls Jerome Filer Fairfield Shoshone Rupert Oakley Burley McCammon Lava Hot Springs McCammon Pocatello Idaho Falls Idaho Falls Idaho Falls Blackfoot Blackfoot Pingree Bennington Grace Iona Idaho Falls Idaho Falls Idaho Falls Rexburg Rexburg Rigby St. Anthony

We encourage you to support these candidates at the polls in the primary election on May 20. Your county Farm Bureau has recommended them and believes they are the candidates most likely to support agriculture and Farm Bureau policies. Agra-PAC will also provide funding for selected candidates with opponents in the general election this November. Members who wish to make a contribution may do so by sending a check made out to Agra-PAC to: Idaho Farm Bureau, attn: Nancy Shiozawa, PO Box 4848, Pocatello, ID 83205. Idaho Farm Bureau Quarterly / SPRING 2014

21

Your Home’s Ability To Withsta ZONE 1: The area nearest your house, plant only low growing plants with low fuel content… there should be no tall plants, but since we all like shade trees pick your species wisely.

ZONE 2: Low growing fireresistant ground cover is recommended from 30 to 100 feet from your home. Properly maintained low fuel plants will slow a fire before it gets to your house.

ZONE 3: Zone three is the area 100 feet beyond your home and can contain healthy naturally growing vegetation.

If you live in a wild land-urban interface, like so many of us in Idaho do, then consider yourself a critical first responder when it comes to defending your home from fire. But unlike those trained to actually fight a blaze, your first response should take place long before the smell of smoke is in the air.

items like landscaping, woodpiles, decks, etc.

With a little planning and understanding of what is important you can take key protective measures in the defense of your home. While there are no guarantees that a home will be fireproof, creating a survivable space and taking the other steps listed can increase the chances that your home will withstand a wildfire.

P.O. Box 4848 Pocatello, ID 83205 (208) 232-7914

www.IdahoFarmBureauInsurance.com

Idaho Farm Bureau Quarterly / SPRING 2014

2. Plant more native vegetation. 3. Space trees at least 10 feet apart.

4. Keep trees and shrubs pruned. Branches shou a minimum of six feet from the ground and

under trees should be no more than 18 inche 275 Tierra Vista Drive

22

1. Remove the fuel fire needs to reach your hom

5. Mow your lawn regularly and dispose promp cuttings and debris. 6. Maintain your irrigation system. 7. Clear your roof, gutters and eaves of debris.

and Wildfire Depends On You.

CREATE SURVIVABLE SPACE:

me,

.

8. Trim branches so they do not extend over your roof or grow near your chimney 9. Move firewood and storage tanks 50 feet away from your home and clear areas at least 10 feet

uld be shrubs

es high.

ptly of

around them. 10. Use only noncombustible roofing materials. 11. Box in eaves, fascias, soffits and subfloors with fire-resistant materials like treated wood, reducing the vent sizes. 12. Apply ¼” noncombustible screening to all vent or eave openings.

13. Install spark arresters in chimneys. 14. Enclose the underside of decks with fire-resistant materials. 15. Cover exterior walls with fire-resistant materials like stucco, stone, or brick. (Vinyl siding can melt and is not recommended.) 16. Use double-paned or tempered glass for all exterior windows. 17. Install noncombustible street signs. 18. Make sure your street address is visible from the street.

Idaho Farm Bureau Quarterly / SPRING 2014

23

Weights and Measurements

CROSSWORD PUZZLE: WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

Across

Across 4. 1 gallon = 16

4. 1 gallon = 16

5. 2 pints= 1 5. 2 pints= 1 9. ¼ cup9.= ¼ 4 cup = 4

11.= 1160 acre = 160 11. 1 acre

17. 1 rod =5 ½ 18. 2000 pounds = 1 19. 16 ounces = 1 Down 1. 1 square mile = 640

6. 3 teaspoons = 1= 1 14. 4 quarts

3. 1760 yards = 1

8. 12 inches = 1= 1 17. 3 feet

12. 1Celsius degree=Celsius 12. 1 degree 339 = 339 2. 60761 feet = 1 13. 220 13. 220 yards - 1yards - 1

4840yards square 15. 484015. square = 1yards = 1 6. 3 teaspoons = 1 24

17. 1 rod =5 ½ Idaho Farm Bureau Quarterly / SPRING 2014

18. 2000 pounds = 1

Down 7. 8 ounces = 1 1. 1 square mile = 640 8. 12 inches = 1 2. 60761 feet = 1 10. 1 peck = ¼ 3. 1760 =1 =6 13.yards 1 fathom 7. 8 ounces =1 16. 1 furlong = 40 10. 1 peck = ¼

ANSWERS ON PAGE 29

13. 1 fathom = 6 14. 4 quarts = 1

Livestock Owners can Protect Property from Predators Submitted by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game One of the five management goals listed in the 2002 Idaho Wolf and Conservation Management Plan was to “minimize wolf-human conflicts by coordinating with USDA Wildlife Services to achieve prompt response to notifications of wolf depredation and prompt resolution of conflicts.” Fish and Game works closely with Wildlife Services to address depredations. Since 2005, Wildlife Services has removed 520 wolves in depredation control actions. Fish and Game also wants to make sure Idahoans understand state law also assures the right of individuals to protect their livestock and domestic animals from wolves (Idaho Code 36-1107 (c)). (c) Control and Depredation of Wolves. Wolves may be disposed of by livestock or domestic animal owners, their employees, agents and animal damage control personnel when the same are molesting or attacking livestock or domestic animals and it

shall not be necessary to obtain any permit from the department. Wolves so taken shall be reported to the director within seventytwo (72) hours, with additional reasonable time allowed if access to the site where taken is limited. Wolves so taken shall remain the property of the state. Livestock and domestic animal owners may take all nonlethal steps they deem necessary to protect their property. A permit must be obtained from the director to control wolves not molesting or attacking livestock or domestic animals. Control is also permitted by owners, their employees and agents pursuant to the Idaho department of fish and game harvest rules. For the purpose of this subsection (c),“molesting “ shall mean the actions of a wolf that are annoying, disturbing or persecuting, especially with hostile intent or injurious effect, or chasing, driving, flushing, worrying, following after or on the trail of, or stalking or lying in wait for, livestock or domestic animals. If you kill a wolf that is molesting or attacking domestic animals, suffer a dep-

redation loss, or if you need a permit to control wolves that may molest or attack your livestock, you should contact your local Fish and Game regional office. Here’s a link with phone numbers and addresses to all seven regional offices: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/about/ offices/ On a case-by-case basis, Fish and Game may issue a kill permit to producers who have experienced chronic wolf depredations that remain unsolved. When a loss is reported to Fish and Game, a Wildlife Services agent will investigate and together, we implement an appropriate, targeted control action to remove the offending animals in a timely manner. You can also contact Wildlife Services directly toll free at 1-866-487-3297. More information about wolves and wolf management in Idaho can be found on the Fish and Game website: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/wolves

Idaho Farm Bureau Quarterly / SPRING 2014

25

26

Idaho Farm Bureau Quarterly / SPRING 2014

“Farmland:The Movie” Coming to a Theatre Near You

By Jake Putnam

A generation of young Americans know little about farming. An Academy Award winning director had the daunting task of venturing where few have been before, documenting the American family farm.  Oscar-award winning director James Moll set out in his latest film: ‘Farmland: The Movie’ to shatter the public perception of farming while telling a compelling story. In the wake of anti-farm movies Likes Food, Inc. and King Corn, Moll signed on at the urging of the U.S. Farmers and Ranchers Alliance (USFRA) to tell a story largely ignored by mainstream media. Editing just wrapped up on the project, and sneak previews across the country are favorable,

with a trailer on YouTube and a flurry of stories in the Ag press and other social media outlets. “While making Farmland, I found myself immersed in a community of some of the most hardworking, passionate people I’ve ever met,” said Moll. “This film isn’t just about what it’s like to be a farmer, it’s about a way of life. It’s also about a subject that affects our lives daily. I make documentaries because it’s a thrill to explore new topics and meet people that I might not otherwise cross paths with.” The movie is timely because of drastically changing demographics in the United States. There are now more than 80 million Americans born after the millennium, and most  of them are at least two or three generations separated from their farm roots. This new generation doesn’t un-

Academy Award winning director James Moll directed “Farmland: The Movie.” The film, which tells a positive story about U.S. agriculture, is set to be released in May.

derstand how crops are grown. Yet studies show that the millennial generation has a deep interest in food. Millenials are loosely defined as people who reached adulthood around the year 2000. The challenge filmmakers faced is showing what “real farming” looks like. ‘Farmland’ takes viewers into barns, fields and farmhouses showing farmers at work and play. The film peaks

into their lives showing their worries and triumphs. The underlying theme plays out perfectly, showing that the film is about farmers, not for farmers. “As important as farmers are, the agriculture audience will certainly get the ball rolling, but they’re not the target audience,” said Randy Krotz, CEO, U.S. See FARMLAND, page 31

Idaho Farm Bureau Quarterly / SPRING 2014

27

Farm Facts

28

Idaho Farm Bureau Quarterly / SPRING 2014

Crossword answers

from page 24

Top Farm Bureau Agents Rookie of the Month: Agent of the Month: Agency of the Month: Alex Salinas Gliege Agency

Rhett Price Schmitt Agency

Across: 5.Quart, Quart,9.9.Tablespoons, Tablespoons, Square rods, Across: 4. 4. Cups, Cups, 5. 11.11. Square rods, 12. Fahrenheit, 13. Furlong, 15. Acre, 17. 12. Fahrenheit, 15. Acre, 17. Yards, 18. Short ton, Yards, 18. Short13. ton,Furlong, 19. Pound. 19. Pound.

Schmitt Agency

Down: 1. Acres, 2. Nautical mile, 3. Mile, 6. Tablespoon, 7. Cup, 8. Foot, 10. Bushel, 13. Feet, 14.

Gallon,1.16.Acres, Rods, 2. 17.Nautical Yard.   mile, 3. Mile, 6. Tablespoon, 7. Cup, Down: 8. Foot, 10. Bushel, 13. Feet, 14. Gallon, 16. Rods, 17. Yard.

Idaho Farm Bureau Quarterly / SPRING 2014

29

Idaho Farm Bureau Women’s Leadership Committee Art Contest Winners

This project began ten years ago as a vehicle to promote the arts and further understanding of agriculture. Aimed at grades 6-8, a variety of mediums can be used in this contest. Winning art

is used in the annual calendar produced by the committee and distributed during the annual meeting. Cash prizes are awarded. Winners for 2014 are:

State and District 2 First Place: Bethany Sky Jones, Rigby Middle School, Rigby (Jefferson County).

State 2nd Place & District 5 First Place: Carson Forsman, Prairie Elementary School, Ferdinand (Idaho County). 30

Idaho Farm Bureau Quarterly / SPRING 2014

State 3rd Place & District 4 First Place: Holly Arritola, New Plymouth Middle School (Payette County).

District 3 First Place: Jackie Valdez, Valley Middle School, Eden (Jerome County).

District 1 First Place: Allie Jensen, HB Lee Middle School, Dayton (Franklin County).

FARMLAND Continued from page 27 Farmers & Ranchers Alliance, a major sponsor of the film. Moll searched the country and settled on a cross section of six 20-something farmers. He found each and every family unique and compelling but also wanted to represent different farm, crops and production methods. Georgia poultry farmer Leighton Cooley was home eating lunch when he got the call.  “You never know what the next phone call might bring,” Cooley recalls. “We’re sometimes skeptical of the next call.” The young farmer got online and checked Moll out, when he saw the impressive contacts and credits, he signed on. The Cooley’s like many country folk love to entertain curious friends on their farm and those numbers have increased thanks to a trend of devoted people referred to as “foodies.” “We love bringing people out to the farm. Any chance we have to let someone check out the farm, we enjoy it,” said Cooley. “If they can see what we do on a daily basis, they leave feeling so much better about the food we eat. This was an incredible experience.” The filmmaker purposely didn’t tell his

farmers much about the project. “I thought the film was one of those how-to documentaries,” said Nebraska corn and soybean farmer David Loberg. “I had no idea it was about me.” Brad Bellah of Texas said the film makers didn’t gloss over difficult days on the ranch. “There’s a certain scene in the film where we’re having a tough time getting cattle to go where they’re supposed to. If you’re watching we’re trying to push cattle right where the cameraman is standing, the cattle didn’t cooperate. Cameras were rolling 24-7, I can’t think of any big problems, but they shot what they saw.” Cooley of Georgia was spreading chicken manure on his fields under the watchful eyes of the camera. “Sometimes your brains says you ought not drive through that part of the field because it’s wet,” he said. But he did anyway and buried the tractor. Thankfully, that part ended up on the cutting room floor. Loberg of Nebraska said one of the photographers had terrible luck on his farm. “When we were planting he was running across the field at night and the sunglasses came off his head. I ran over them with the planter. Then during harvest he was coming off the com-

bine and his IPhone fell out of a pocket and I drove over it.” Moll visited each farm 4 different times throughout the growing season. His cameras ran sun up till after sundown each day. It’s hoped that this sampling will reflect the truths about U.S. Agriculture in a way not seen before, warts and all. Crews shot hundreds of hours of tape during the yearlong project. The end result, according to the farm press, is a very human, and very interesting film. They add it’s a compelling snapshot of agriculture in America. When the film hits urban markets Moll will find out if he succeeded in reaching the audience target. Moll is an Oscar-winning filmmaker who has directed and produced numerous documentaries covering topics from the Holocaust to an epic trek across the Sahara Desert, teaming up with Matt Damon and Steven Spielberg along the way. Farmland’s theatrical run this spring will play in 25 major markets across the nation. A shorter, 44-minute version edited for schools is planned after that. For more information, visit http://www.farmlandfilm.com/. 

Idaho Farm Bureau Quarterly / SPRING 2014

31

SPOTLIGHT ON IDAHO FFA—Building Tomorrow’s Agricultural Leaders Idaho FFA Elects New State Leadership Idaho FFA wrapped up the 83rd Annual State FFA Leadership conference in Twin Falls on April 12 with the exciting announcement of the 2014-15 State FFA Officer Team. The new officers began their training in April and will spend the next year serving Idaho’s over 4,200 FFA members, promoting the FFA Organization and advocating for Idaho agriculture.

2014 - 2015 Idaho State FFA Officer Team

To learn more about Idaho FFA, please visit: www.idahoffa.org www.idffafoundation.org

(Pictured from left) Mitch Royer, President, Cambridge FFA Chapter; Clancy Johnston, State Secretary, New Plymouth FFA Chapter; Justin Nesbitt, State Treasurer, Meridian FFA Chapter; Emily Hicks, State Reporter, Middleton FFA Chapter; Garrett Brogan, State Sentinel, Bear Lake FFA Chapter; and Amanda Hale, State Vice President, Rigby FFA Chapter.

Idaho Farm Bureau proudly sponsors the Idaho FFA Extemporaneous Public Speaking Career Development Event

The Extemporaneous Public Speaking Career Development Event challenges FFA members to prepare and deliver a factual speech on a specific agricultural issue in a logical manner – in a short amount of time. Participants draw one topic and have 30 minutes to prepare their four to six minute speeches. A panel of judges uses an additional five minutes to question the speaker on their assigned topic. Through this event, students develop a broad knowledge of current agricultural issues, as well as polish logical reasoning and effective communication skills that will allow them to excel in the classroom and beyond.

2013 Idaho FFA Extemporaneous Public Speaking Winner: Congratulations to Morgan Howard of the Nezperce FFA Chapter, 2014 Idaho FFA State Champion in Extemporaneous Public Speaking. She will represent Idaho at nationals in Louisville, KY in October.

FFA—Premier Leadership, Personal Growth and Career Success through Agricultural Education 32

Idaho Farm Bureau Quarterly / SPRING 2014

When “Rights” are Wrong Prosperity in any country is not primarily due to any advantage in natural resources or the intelligence or ingenuity of its citizens. It is, however, directly correlated to the protection and security of private property and other rights. Rights are what provide the incentive to create and produce. But what are rights, and how are they protected? The Declaration of Independence proclaims it is self-evident that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Our own Idaho Constitution states “All men are by nature free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property; pursuing happiness and securing safety.” Both documents refer to natural or Godgiven and inalienable rights. Inalienable means absolute, unassailable, and indisputable; they cannot be taken away, even by government. A right means you do not have to ask for permission to exercise it. It is available to you freely at any time. Nineteenth century political philosopher Frederic Bastiat, in his tremendous book The Law, explained “Life, liberty and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” The purpose of government, and the law, is to secure our rights and freedom from violation by others. Because a person has a natural right to protect and defend his life and property, he and other citizens therefore can join together and delegate their

authority to the local sheriff who will exercise that power on their behalf, to protect their rights while they go about their daily business. Since governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, they cannot legitimately exercise any powers that the citizens do not themselves have to lend. If I have no refrigerator and my neighbor, through hard work or good fortune has two, I have no right to go to his house and take one from him. Therefore, I cannot delegate to the government the ability to take from my neighbor and give to me, no matter how much I may need or want the assistance. I may claim that I have a “right” to a refrigerator. However, actual rights of the type Jefferson referred to in the Declaration require no action of any other person. For example, your right to life is realized so long as nobody murders you; your right to property is available so long as nobody steals your property, or regulates it away from you. This is in stark contrast to many so called “rights” that are loudly proclaimed today which actually require someone else to do something for the “right” to be realized. To receive the claimed right to free health care, someone else must provide it. To get the demanded right to a living wage, employers must be compelled to pay employees who have not earned it. Try this experiment the next time you read the newspaper. Whenever someone claims they have a “right” to something, think about whether it will require someone else to provide the claimed right. If so, it is not a right, but a privilege they are seeking at someone else’s expense. Genuine, inalienable rights that government must protect are those rights which require no action by others; they simply need to leave you alone. So long as you do not infringe on other’s rights, what you do

Russ Hendricks is Idaho Farm Bureau’s director of governmental affairs. He can be reached at [email protected].

with your rights is up to you. Conversely, government cannot legitimately enforce any so-called “rights” which require action by others; since that, by definition, would deprive the person required to act of their inalienable rights to their liberty and/or their property. Government then becomes the promoter and instrument of injustice rather than the protector and defender of rights and justice. Unfortunately, we have allowed government itself to violate our rights under the guise of doing good. Our government has taken more property than all the criminals combined for the alleged “greater good.” If we expect to prosper we must demand that government vigorously protect our unalienable rights and reject claims of false “rights.” Then once again, rights will be right.

Idaho Farm Bureau Quarterly / SPRING 2014

33

UI Releases Study on Food Processing Economy By John Thompson Research recently released by the University of Idaho Extension shows that farming, ranching and food processing make up an important and growing sector of the state’s economy. Exogenous, or outside demand for Idaho agricultural commodities accounts for seven percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Food processing sales to firms outside the state comprise five percent of Gross State Product. Combined, farming, ranching and food processing account for 12 percent of Idaho’s GDP, according to research complied by UI experts, Paul Lewin, Kathleen Painter, Paul Patterson, Neil Rimbey and C. Wilson Gray. Processing of potatoes and milk account for more than half of sales and provide more than 60 percent of Idaho’s food processing jobs. Idaho’s dairy industry was responsible for 20 percent of the sales from agricultural processing industry in 2011 and employed 16 percent of the agricultural processing job force. The potato industry employed 46 percent of the agricultural processing workforce and was responsible for 33 percent of sales. Food manufacturing in Idaho accounts for 16,000 jobs or two percent of the state workforce. Businesses that process potatoes, sugarbeets, barley, wheat and milk provide 72 percent of food manufacturing jobs and account for 75 percent of food manufacturing gross product. Collectively, the food processing industry accounts for six percent of Idaho jobs, 15 percent of sales and seven percent of Gross State Product (GSP). With regard to specific commodities, Idaho leads the nation in production of potatoes and barley, is second in production of sugarbeets, third in production of milk, fourth in production alfalfa and lentils and fifth in production of wheat. Dairy According to the UI research, the Idaho dairy processing industry’s economic con34

tribution included cash receipts of $2.2 billion in 2011. It employed 2,577 people. About 70 percent of Idaho’s dairy herd is located in the Magic Valley and that herd tripled in size between 1993 and 2012 from 189,000 head to 580,000 head. Output per cow has increased 37 percent over the past 20 years. Annual milk production has grown from 3.2 billion pounds in 1993 to 13.6 billion pounds in 2012. The study cites high quality products, feed, and mild climate as strengths in looking to the future. However, dairy product demand is only keeping pace with population growth and milk consumption per capita is decreasing due to competition from other beverages. Increasing production costs and high fuel prices are concerns for Idaho’s dairy industry due to significant distances from population centers, according to the research. Potatoes Idaho’s potato processing industry accounted for $2.84 billion in cash receipts and employed 7,478 people in 2011. Fresh pack potatoes were not included in the totals but employed an additional 2,000 people. About 70 percent of Idaho’s potato crop is processed into fries, tots and other products including dehydration. Of the remaining 30 percent, 23 percent is shipped fresh and seven percent is used for seed. Planted acres of potatoes declined by an average of 5,000 acres per year between 1993 and 2012. Acreage peaked in 1996 and again in

Idaho Farm Bureau Quarterly / SPRING 2014

2000 at 415,000 acres. Overall potato yield is increasing by about four hundredweight per acre per year. The state average yield is now 385 hundredweight per acre. Idaho’s potato industry continues to be the nation’s leader due to climate, knowledgeable producers and an established marketing strategy. However, as with milk, the industry is challenged by distance to major markets and declining consumption per capita. Sugarbeets Cash receipts connected to Idaho’s sugarbeet processing industry were 894 million in 2011. The industry employed 1,449 people. Idaho farmers produced 6.4 million tons of sugarbeets in 2012 or 18 percent of the total U.S. crop. Minnesota was the leading state, producing 35 percent of the U.S. crop. About 60 percent of Idaho’s crop is grown in the Magic Valley. Idaho sugarbeet acreage has been up and down over the past 20 years ranging from 131,000 acres in 2008 to 212,000 acres in 2002. Yields have increased steadily. The yearly average yield from 1993 to 2002 was 25.7 tons as compared to 31.7 tons between 2003 and 2012. The 23 percent yield increase is attributed to GMO (Roundup Ready) technology that became available to growers in 2006. To read the complete report including details on wheat and barley processing in Idaho, refer to the following website: www. uidaho.edu/extension

COLUMBIA BASIN

Continued from page 15

out of hydro projects in Canada. The Legislature’s HJM 10 says if all of the dams and reservoirs in the Columbia Basin were used for “system-wide flood control before Canadian reservoirs are called upon to provide any flood-control space,” that could have a “devastating impact on irrigation project reservoir supplies in Idaho.” That’s because a number of the large dams and reservoirs in southern Idaho are dedicated to storing irrigation water as a higher priority than flood control. HJM 10 also mentions that in some circles, enhancing the ecosystemfunction of the Columbia Basin could include restoring salmon and steelhead above Hells Canyon Dam and above Dworkshak Dam. Yost said those projects are now off the table, but the tribes want to restore salmon and steelhead above Grand Coulee Dam, which was completed in 1942 with no fish-passage measures. Yost, Batt and Semanko said it wouldn’t be appropriate to extend the treaty to include ecosystem functions in the Snake River Basin in Idaho. Many federal and state actions already address these issues, they said. Idaho Power Co. invests millions in its fish and wildlife programs, and the BPA, Army Corps and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have invested billions in fish and wildlife programs throughout the Columbia and Snake basins. Several million of the BPA funds have been invested by the Governor’s Office of Species Conservation in fish and wildlife habitat improvement projects in the Upper Salmon River Basin and the Clearwater Basin. In addition, the Idaho Soil and Water Conservation Commission and its conservation partners have invested $17 million in voluntary conservation projects on 90,000 acres of private land since 1990 in the Snake River Basin to address natural resources issues on farm and ranchlands. The Conservation Commission’s share of that investment is about $6.5 million. Teri Murrison, administrator of the Conservation Commission, said those investments show that the state and private landowners care about the health of the ecosystems in the Snake River Basin and will continue to make more improvements as time goes on. “We’re doing our share, via voluntary conservation, to improve the water, the land and the wildlife,” she said. How all of these issues shake out will be determined by discussions and negotiations between now and mid-September. “We’re looking to set up a four-state meeting with the BPA in terms of where we go from here,” Yost said. “Because Idaho’s water rights, water-storage projects and many other issues hang in the balance, we hope that the treaty negotiations will focus on the original intent -- flood control and hydropower,” Murrison said, echoing the thoughts conveyed to the U.S Department of State by Yost and Gov. Butch Otter.

Idaho Farm Bureau Quarterly / SPRING 2014

35

County Happenings

Dwight and Jamie Little of Madison County recently received a new Case tractor. The couple won the tractor by competing in the American Farm Bureau Young Farmer and Rancher Achiever contest. Photo by Zak Miller

Idaho Farm Bureau’s MAC (Moving Agriculture to the Classroom) trailer was at the Greencreek Community Center in Idaho County in mid-April. 4th and 5th grade students from several schools attended the event and learned about farming, ranching and forestry. Photo by Steve Ritter

36

Idaho Farm Bureau Quarterly / SPRING 2014

Payette County Farm Bureau hosted a meet the candidates night in midApril in New Plymouth. Candidates from District 9 spoke and responded to questions from a crowd estimated at 80 people. Photo by Steve Ritter

AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION NEWS

American Farm Bureau Tells Members to ‘Ditch’ EPA Water Rule WASHINGTON, D.C. – The American Farm Bureau Federation today asked its members to resist a proposed rule from the Environmental Protection Agency that it says will impose unworkable regulations on the nation’s farms. Published April 22 in the Federal Register, the more-than111,000-word “Waters of the U.S.” proposed rule reflects the EPA’s latest interpretation of the 1972 Clean Water Act. The rule could ultimately lead to the unlawful expansion of federal regulation to cover routine farming and ranching practices as well as other common private land uses, such as building homes. “This rule is an end run around congressional intent and rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court, alike,” AFBF President Bob Stallman says. “Congress and the courts have both said that the 50 states, not EPA, have power to decide how farming and other land uses should be restricted. It’s time to ditch this rule.” Among other things, the rule would expand federal control over land features such as ditches and areas of agricultural land that are wet only during storms. EPA says its new rule clarifies the scope of the Clean Water Act. However, EPA’s

“clarification” is achieved by categorically classifying most water features and even dry land as “waters of the United States.” If carried out, Farm Bureau says, ordinary field work, fence construction or even planting could require a federal permit. The result will be a wave of new regulation or outright prohibitions on routine farming practices and other land uses. “Congress, not federal agencies, writes the laws of the land,” Stallman said. “When Congress wrote the Clean Water Act, it clearly intended for the law to apply to navigable waters. Is a small ditch navigable? Is a stock pond navigable? We really don’t think so, and Farm Bureau members are going to be sending that message.” EPA contends that an entire set of exemptions will protect many farmers from the burdensome new rule. But Stallman counters that those exemptions will only apply to farming that has been ongoing since the 1970s, not new or expanded farms. Even for those farms, the exemptions do not cover weed control, fertilizer use or other common farm practices. The already narrow exemptions, Stallman says, have existed for years

but have been further narrowed by EPA guidance issued simultaneously with the proposed rule. “The EPA exemptions offer no meaningful protection for the hundreds of thousands of farmers and ranchers whose operations and livelihoods are threatened by this expansion of EPA’s regulatory reach,” Stallman says. “EPA and the Army Corps of

Engineers have said the WOTUS rule provides clarity and certainty. The only thing that is clear and certain is that, under this rule, it will be more difficult for private landowners to farm and ranch, build homes or make changes to the land – even if the changes that landowners propose would benefit the environment. This is pure and simply wrong, and it is why we need to ditch the rule.”

Celebrating 75 Years Conserving the Idaho Way

LOW INTEREST LOANS FOR IDAHO SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION Sprinkler Irrigation, No-Till Drills, Fences Livestock Feeding Operations Solar Stock Water Pump Systems 2.5%-3.5% Terms 7-15 Years Up to $200,000 CONSERVATION

LOAN PROGRAM

swc.idaho.gov | 208-332-1790 Idaho Farm Bureau Quarterly / SPRING 2014

37

Marketbasket Survey Bacon Prices Up, Eggs Too

Higher retail prices for several food items used to prepare breakfast, including bacon, eggs and bread, among other foods, resulted in a slight increase in the American Farm Bureau Federation’s latest Semi-Annual Marketbasket Survey. The informal survey shows the total cost of 16 food items that can be used to prepare one or more meals was $53.27, up $1.73 or about 3.5 percent compared to a survey conducted a year ago. Of the 16 items surveyed, 10 increased, five decreased and one remained the same in average price. “Several typical breakfast items increased in price, accounting for much of the modest increase in the marketbasket,” said John Anderson, AFBF’s deputy chief economist. “The 3.5 percent increase shown by our survey tracks closely with Agriculture Department’s forecast of 2.5 percent to 3.5 percent food inflation for 2014,” he said. Items showing retail price increases from a year ago included bacon, up 12 percent to $4.80 per pound; ground chuck, up 10 percent to $4.10 per pound; white bread, up 10 percent to $1.81 for a 20-ounce loaf; sirloin tip roast, up 9 percent to $5.03 per pound; eggs, up 8 percent to $1.98 per dozen; whole milk, up 6 percent to $3.68 per gallon; chicken breasts, up 6 percent to $3.51 per pound; flour, up 5 percent to $2.76 for a 5-pound bag; toasted oat cereal, up less than 38

1 percent to $2.93 for a 9-ounce box; and Russet potatoes, up less than one-half of 1 percent to $2.70 for a 5-pound bag. These items showed modest retail price decreases: bagged salad, down 4 percent to $2.61 per pound; deli ham, down 3 percent to $5.21 per pound; apples, down 3 percent to $1.59 per pound; vegetable oil, down 2 percent to $2.85 for a 32-ounce bottle; and orange juice, down 1 percent to $3.24 per half-gallon. Shredded cheddar cheese remained the same in price compared to a year ago, at $4.47 per pound. Price checks of alternative milk and egg choices not included in the overall marketbasket survey average revealed the following: 1/2 gallon regular milk, $2.46; 1/2 gallon rBST-free milk,

Idaho Farm Bureau Quarterly / SPRING 2014

$3.87; 1/2 gallon organic milk, $3.97; and 1 dozen “cage-free” eggs, $3.33. The year-to-year direction of the marketbasket survey tracks closely with the federal government’s Consumer Price Index (http://www.bls.gov/cpi/) report for food at home. As retail grocery prices have increased gradually over time, the share of the average food dollar that America’s farm and ranch families receive has dropped. “Through the mid-1970s, farmers received about one-third of consumer retail food expenditures for food eaten at home and away from home, on average. Since then, that figure has decreased steadily and is now about 16 percent, according to the Agriculture Department’s revised Food Dollar Series,” Anderson said.

Using the “food at home and away from home” percentage across-the-board, the farmer’s share of this $53.27 marketbasket would be $8.52. AFBF, the nation’s largest general farm organization, conducted an informal quarterly marketbasket survey of retail food price trends from 1989 to 2012. In 2013, the marketbasket series was updated to include two semi-annual surveys of “everyday” food items, a summer cookout survey and the annual Thanksgiving survey. According to USDA, Americans spend just under 10 percent of their disposable annual income on food, the lowest average of any country in the world. A total of 89 shoppers in 27 states participated in the latest survey, conducted in March.

UI FORESTRY

Continued from page 19

membership or certification are not guarantees that an individual forester will best meet your needs. There are other important questions to ask. How much experience do they have? What do public agency foresters, landowners, or other references say about their work? Are you comfortable they will be sensitive and responsive to your values and goals?

ers do not do anything active with their forests until they need income or have an insect or disease problem. Forest owners are much better served when they pay attention to their woods before these events. For example, most responses to forest insect & disease issues are preventative, before there is an obvious problem. Professional forestry assistance is an invaluable resource to help you maintain and enhance the full range of economic, ecological, and aesthetic values for your forest.

Regardless of how they are employed, any forester is ethically obligated to clearly disclose any real or potential conflicts of interest. A consulting forester works strictly for their client’s best interest (e.g.: if someone is buying logs from you they are not a consulting forester).

Chris Schnepf is an area extension educator – forestry – for the University of Idaho in Bonner, Boundary, Kootenai and Benewah counties. He can be reached at cschnepf@uidaho. edu.

Conclusion Many Idaho family forest own-

UI Extension provides education programs for family forest owners.

GET MORE. SPEND LESS. 0% for 60 months plus $1250 implement Bonus

e^100

X534 Select Series™ Mower

With purchase of 2 or more implements

• 24.hp (17.9kW)* • 48-in. or 54-in. mower deck • Exclusive 4-wheel steering

1-Family Tractors

• 22.4 - 24.2 hp (16.5 - 17.8kW)* • Twin Touch Hydrostatic Transmission • Standard 4WD and power steering

$600 OFF

1

Offer ends June 2, 2014 Offer ends 5/31/14. Prices and model availability may vary by dealer. Some restrictions apply; other special rates and terms may be available, so see your dealer for details and other financing options. Available at participating dealers. 1 Series Fixed Rate for 0.0% for 60 Months. $1250 Dollars OFF implement bonus is in addition to Low Rate financing and requires the purchase of 2 or more qualifying John Deere or Frontier implements. Valid only at participating US dealers. Subject to approved installment credit with John Deere Financial. Some restrictions apply; other special rates and terms may be available, so see your dealer for details and other financing options. The engine horsepower and torque information are provided by the engine manufacturer to be used for comparison purposes only. Actual operating horsepower and torque will be less. Refer to the engine manufacturer’s web site for additional information.

e

1

100

^

AH2KKCU1AA48339-CTI-7X40501IFB-4C-00409530

Idaho Farm Bureau Quarterly / SPRING 2014

39

40

Idaho Farm Bureau Quarterly / SPRING 2014

Idaho Farm Bureau Quarterly / SPRING 2014

41

Classifieds

Animals

Miscellaneous

Natural working, listening ability Border Collie pups (faithful) $225.00 each. Hagerman, Id 208-539-6221.

2 in. water rights on Burgess Canal Sell $150. OBO 208-745-7306.

ASCA registered Australian Shepherd pups. Working line since 1968. Full satisfaction guaranteed. All four colors available. Boise, Id 208-484-9802. Himalayan Yaks for Sale - Yearlings, 2 year olds and Breeding Age Cows. $800.00 $1500.00. Call or e-mail for more about these amazing animals. McCall, ID. (208) 271-6166 or [email protected]. Boer meat goats; all ages and sizes, for sale. Does with kids, bred does, bucks. Also; Goat chops and goat roasts. Hagerman, Idaho. 208837-6523. ‘Llamas’ for pets, 4-H , sheep guards, packers. Easy Keepers! $100-300. Sandpoint, Id 208263-0224

Farm Equipment Challenger MT 755, 2209 hrs, annual service by Western States, 1000 hrs on 25’ tracks. Trimble A/S and sprayer control, reduced to $152,000; Two 500hp US Motors, 480 volt, 3 phase, Inverter duty, hollowshaft irrigation motors, $25,000 each. American Falls, Id [email protected] or call 208-220-5588. New squeeze-chute, hand pull, green. $1,200. Midvale, Id 208-355-3780. John Deere 2250, 13ft header A/C cab; New Holland baler model 425; New Holland hayliner model 900. Must See - make offer. Mountain Home, Id. 208-587-5041. IH 275 & 375 Swathers and parts for sale. IH 720 & 830 corn choppers and parts for sale. I need gearbox from a Farmhand hammermill or tub grinder or an old one for parts. Burley, Id. Merlin Yost 208-312-2902.

Coleman Ram-x17 Canoe $300 obo. MTD rear tine tiller. $450. Bliss, Id 83314. Custom built Lodge Pole Pine full size bunk bed w/built in ladder, 6 drawer desk and shelving fits underneath, all 3 pieces $1,000, Twin Falls, ID 208-733-5412. 5” Aluminum Main Line (380 ft) with valves and couplers. $600.00; Gas/Propane Hot Water Heater-Make: G.E.-Capacity - 40 Gal. (Tall). Only used 3 years. Great Condition. Paid $550 - Asking $300 Shelley, ID. Call 528-5337. Please leave message. Put under ground system have Goulds 1 1/2 HP complete with hoses, two rain bird sprinklers, used two seasons. Too old to drag hoses around at night. All for $225.00. Firth, Id. For details call 1-208-346-6982. Need a replacement pump? Cleaning out the shop. Gently used submersible pumps from ½ hp to 20 hp. Major brands: Jacuzzi, Berkeley, Gould, Grunfos and Red Jacket. Boise, Id. Call for details 208 863-2887 or 208 385-0151.

Real Estate/Acreage Hwy 52: Turn-Key Ranch: 94-100 AU $1.27M, 2221 total acres, 476 deeded, 87 ac irrigated. Inc. home, livestock & equipment. Hwy 95-Cascade: 705 Acres Pastureland & Timber $1.5M Contact: Lon Lundberg lon. [email protected] Mark Bottles Real Estate 208-559-2120. 330 acres of industrial land next to cheese factory in Mountain Home. Lot has city water, sewer, natural gas, coaxial cable and power. Available for sale in parts or whole. 25¢-$1.25 per sq/ft. Contact Scott’s Desert Sun Realty at 941-9917.

Help Wanted

Rodeo or 4-H family dream. 2200 sq ft home. w/woodstove, appliances on 4.5 acres, 2 irrigated. Horse barn (60x60) 8 stalls/ tackroom. Hotwalker, rough stock arena (100x300), corrals, chickens and coop. Quonset, machine shop, tractor w/attach. Located in N. Rupert. Asking $235,000. 208-532-0165.

Agricultural Opportunity - Our top livestock and Equipment Appraisers earn 1000,000200,000/year. Agricultural Background Required. Home Study course available. Call 800-488-7570 www.amagapprasiers.com

1974 Skylark 12x60 $6,000; 1974 Academy 14x60 $6,500. Good Condition. Sold “AS IS” condition. Natural Gas. Must be moved. Shelley area. For more information, call 528-5337. Please leave message.

Balewagons: New Holland self-propelled or pull-type models/parts/tires. Also interested in buying balewagons. Will consider any model. Call Jim Wilhite at 208-880-2889 anytime.

42

Idaho Farm Bureau Quarterly / SPRING 2014

Real Estate/Acreage

Wanted

Clean, well maintained 2,500+ square foot home on 1 acre. 5 bedrooms, 2.5 bathrooms, 2 car garage, maintenance free siding, trex deck, private well, sprinkler system, irrigation rights, etc. Westside Idaho Falls off Shelley New Sweden Highway. Call 208-339-8748.

Overhead fuel (for gas) tank on stand. Hydraulic press for shop. Great Plains drill12 or 14 ft wide. 208-317-7858.

Mobile Homes: 1974 Marlette 14x70 $12,500 with Add on/Tip-out. Newer furnace & hot water heater. 1974 Skylark 12x60 $6,000, 1974 Academy 14x60. $6,500, Good Condition. Sold “AS IS” condition. Natural Gas. Must be moved. Shelley area. For more information, call 528-5337. Please leave message.

Recreational Equipment 2010 Springdale 17ft RV trailer. Like new. Used 4 times. Central Heat, Awning, Micro, 3 burner stove, over, Queen bed. Tub/shower. $8,500. Filer, Id. 208-326-5238. Century Fiberglass 8ft camper shell, green, good condition, $550. Idaho City, Id. 208392-6057.

Vehicles/Trailers/Access. 2008 Ford crew cab dually, Lariat Ed, excellent condition, 112,000 miles. 208-538-7349. 1974 Jeep CJ5, 1959 Jeep Pickup all-wheel drive, 1975 Corvette hardtop soft-top. Preston, Id. 208-427-6237 leave message. 1987 Honda VT 1100 Shadow motorcycle, 59000 miles, windshield,$2500. Idaho City, Id 208-392-6057. 2007 Chevy Silverado Extra cab 4x4, 4.8L, V8, auto, air, tow package, blue. 77,000 miles, one owner, $11,000 Idaho City, Id. 208-392-6057.

2 or 3 lines (1/4 mile long) of 3 or 4 inch hand line- hook and latch with center riser. American Falls, Id. 208-317-7858. Buying U.S. gold coins, proof and mint sets, silver dollars, rolls and bags. PCGS/NGC certified coins, estates, accumulations, large collections, investment portfolios, bullion, platinum. Will travel, all transactions confidential. Please call 208-859-7168. Paying cash for German & Japanese war relics/ souvenirs! Pistols, rifles, swords, daggers, flags, scopes, optical equipment, uniforms, helmets, machine guns (ATF rules apply) medals, flags, etc. 549-3841 (evenings) or 208-405-9338. Old License Plates Wanted: Also key chain license plates, old signs, light fixtures. Will pay cash. Please email, call or write. Gary Peterson, 130 E Pecan, Genesee, Id 83832. gearlep@ gmail.com. 208-285-1258. Paying cash for old cork top bottles and some telephone insulators. Call Randy. Payette, Id. 208-740-0178. Collector of baseball, basketball and football cards. Also baseballs. Idaho Falls, Id. 208-8812213.

DEADLINE DATES:

ADS MUST BE RECEIVED BY 1985 Western Trailers: 40’ and 24’. Aluminum JULY 20 deck w/outside frame. Tires 24.5 LP. Good condition. Emmett, Id 208-230-7757 FOR NEXT Leer aluminum pickup topper. Sliding front ISSUE OF THE window, racks, fits 84 Chev with 8-foot bed. Very good condition. Victor, Id. 208-354-2585 QUARTERLY FREE CLASSIFIEDS Non commercial classified ads are free to Idaho Farm Bureau members. Must include membership number for free ad. Forty (40) words maximum. Non-member cost- 50 cents per word. You may advertise your own crops, livestock, used machinery, household items, vehicles, etc. Ads will not be accepted by phone. Ads run one time only and must be re-submitted in each subsequent issue. We reserve the right to refuse to run any ad. Please type or print clearly. Proof-read your ad.

Mail ad copy to: P.O. Box 4848, Pocatello, ID 83205-4848 or email Dixie at [email protected] Name: __________________________________________________________________________ Address: _________________________________________________________________________ City / State / Zip: __________________________________________________________________ Phone: _____________________________________

Membership No. ___________________

Ad Copy: ________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________

Farm Bureau Rebate $500

New Idaho Farm Bureau Program With General Motors

Eligible Farm Bureau members in Idaho can receive a $500 rebate on each qualifying 2013, 2014, or 2015 model year Chevrolet, GMC or Buick vehicle they purchase or lease. This Farm Bureau member exclusive is offered for vehicles purchased or leased at participating dealerships through Farm Bureau’s—GM PRIVATE OFFER at a participating GM dealership. Members simply go to www.fbverify.com, enter their Farm Bureau membership number (i.e. 123456-01) and zip code, and print off a certificate to take to the dealership. Discount must be processed at time of purchase. To qualify for the offer, individuals must have been a Farm Bureau member for at least 60 days prior to the date of delivery of the vehicle selected. The Farm Bureau discount is stackable with some incentives and non-stackable with others. See dealership for full details or call Joel at (208) 239-4289.

Chevrolet Sierra Chevrolet Silverado Chevrolet Sonic Chevrolet Suburban Chevrolet Tahoe Chevrolet Traverse

Offer available through 4/1/17. Available on all 2014 and 2015 Chevrolet, Buick and GMC vehicles. This offer available with all other offers, excluding discounted pricing (employee, dealership employee and supplier pricing). Only customers who have been active members of an eligible Farm Bureau for a minimum of 30 days will be eligible to receive a certificate. Customers can obtain certificates at www.fbverify.com/gm. Farm Bureau and the FB logo are registered service marks of the American Farm Bureau Federation and are used herein under license by General Motors.

Farm Bureau Members Pay Less www.idahofbstore.com 208-239-4289

General Admission Regular - $51.07

Meal Combo Regular - Over $59

Farm Bureau Price

Farm Bureau Price

$38.50

$44.50

*Lagoon prices include sales tax. Purchase at Farm Bureau offices.

Regular Adult $31.79

Farm Bureau Price

$25.50

*Roaring Springs prices include sales tax. Purchase at select Farm Bureau offices or online.

Regular Adult $29.99

Farm Bureau Online Discount Price

$23.99

Child/ (Under 58”) $22.99

Farm Bureau Online Discount Price

$18.49

Roaring Springs/Wahooz Combo available for $35.99

Regular Adult $45.99

Farm Bureau Online Discount Price

$38.99

Child/Senior $22.99

Farm Bureau Online Discount Price

$17.99