Even though I am not thought of as an environmentalist, I am an advocate for farming. In my mind, respect for the land as it relates to farming is a higher priority for me than a stand alone concern for the “environment”. It comes down to balance. Most people are generally concerned about the environment, but they are not fanatics. The lack of meaningful science that most average citizens can understand makes us leery of often unsubstantiated claims.
I think that in spite of the fact that the interests of farmers are consistent with the environmental community in many ways, they also have significant differences. Farmers have always been environmentalists. Environmentalists are rarely farmers. They are too idealistic to figure out how to make a living applying their own regulatory expectations to the real world.
My concern about agriculture in our community comes from living in a town with a rich farming heritage. In the early years our city was a center for forestry related businesses; it was a processing and market place for farm products grown in and around the town. Living in an agriculture community does not require that you be a farmer to appreciate the work they do.
For general purposes though, I grew up working on different farms from the time I was ten. Most young people in my age group started our work lives picking strawberries or raspberries on the local farms. I lived on a dairy farm for the summer in 1963 to learn about hard work. My dad knew the lessons learned on a dairy farm would serve me throughout my life. Walt and Alvina Hereth may have also learned some lessons about taking in a city kid as well. Even today, I appreciate the experience working on their farm that summer.
Off and on for several years, I worked for farmers haying and doing other crappy jobs. It was a good way for a kid to make a few bucks.
After high school, I went to work at the Seattle Snohomish Mill. I had the privilege of working for “Old Bob” Waltz. Even though my job was working in the mill, he allowed me to work on a couple occasions with forestry managers who needed a young guy who could lift a bunch and think at the same time. Neal Bowman gave me a few lessons in the late sixties and early seventies that are still meaningful today.
A couple years later, I had the opportunity to work on a corporate farm in central Oregon. Irrigation infrastructure creates an incredibly productive farming environment in that part of the world. Yields compared to dry land farming are sometimes a factor of ten or more. Technology on the farm made it possible to quantify what we did, how much we did it and when we did it. I had the chance to learn about farming from professionals. The lessons were not wasted.
Most recently, my brother bought an apple orchard in Yakima for his life after military retirement. The learning curve for a venture like that is steep for everyone in the family. Who knew about all the non-farming things you need to know to be a farmer?
I am not a farmer today and make no claims to be one. I have done the work though and understand the satisfying feeling farmers get when they produce a crop or a tank of milk. I sympathize with them when their task is made more difficult through regulations passed by government types who have not walked the furrows on a farm yet feel compelled to pile on. I know the feeling of watching a wheat field be pummeled by a hail storm. Farming is hard enough by itself without the additional load of government bureaucrats.
From a regional perspective, I am troubled as farmers I have known over the years have given up farming. They cite a variety of reasons, but the bottom line is as each one disappears, we all lose. Unlike the environmental community, I am more interested in preserving farms and farmers than I am “farm land”. Without the farmers, the land is just land. Working the land is what makes a farm.
In our county, the priority has been to save the farm land, but not the farmer. That needs to change. We need to rethink our priorities so that it is possible to make a living working the land again. That might entail lobbying government at a higher level to change state and federal regulations. This would the original “grass roots effort” to make a difference.
In our state, the Growth Management Act tells us that we must preserve farm land. To that end, we are prevented from using agricultural land for recreation or open space purposes. Apparently, it is not because of a desire to preserve open space. Play fields for kids could be a great use for land if it cannot be farmed productively. The state has been clear about the farm land preservation thing by repeatedly denying requests for regulations that would allow them.
So I finally get to the point of this story. In spite of the fact that our state is vehement about preserving “prime” farm land, we are witnessing the state sponsored destruction of “prime” farm land in the name of the environment.
One example would be the Biringer Farm between Everett and Marysville. There is little doubt that it has been very productive farm land, but the land is now owned by the Port of Everett and will be used as a wetland mitigation project. In the near future, the Port will remove the drainage structures and the dikes to flood the “prime” farm land and turn it into a swamp. I guess that tells us how important preserving the farm land is to our government officials.
Another example is the sale of hundreds if not thousands of acres of farm land between Monroe and Snohomish to the Nature Conservancy. Their plan is to tear out the drainage infrastructure and the dikes to flood the “prime” farm land to make it a swamp that will serve as a nature habitat for ducks.
These are just two examples within ten miles of my city. High minded nature lovers are destroying our “prime” farm land for their play fields. Isn’t that hypocritical at the minimum? It really makes me wonder about the motives of our elected officials. What is their agenda?
I hear what they are saying with their words, it just doesn’t match up with their deeds. I feel a change in the winds.
No Loss for Words 
I think I may have voted for an Edsel
by Steve DanaThe election is finally over and I can’t think of one person who isn’t happy that the campaigning has stopped. The media people are probably a little disappointed since the money spent during the election season is like a retailer’s version of Christmas shopping seasons. The amount of money spent was incredible. Do you think there is a day after a political campaign where you can “take it back for a refund” if it didn’t turn out the way you wanted? Wouldn’t that be interesting? Losers get a refund.
When you think about it, in the political world, the winner gets the refund. If everyone does what they are supposed to do, the dollars invested in a political campaign will produce a return on investment.
Keep in mind that I am not talking about the voters; I am talking about the campaign contributors. If you look at the Public Disclosure Commission reports you can decide for yourself which people are expecting a return on their investment. It is disappointing and alarming looking at some of them.
I don’t want to diminish the importance of the voters in all of this since you need them to complete the process, but there is so much going on in the campaign strategy rooms aimed at shaping voter thought processes. Psychologically manipulating the way we think of the candidates leads us to choices that fit a particular profile. Voters do have to “pull the lever” to make their choice after the marketing blitz but they are often led very carefully to that choice.
As a business person, it’s interesting listening to the strategy meetings in a political campaign. You apply the same principles to selling cars or tooth paste as you do to politics. The marketing people don’t care what the product is.
Think about the candidates you voted for. Do you have specific expectations for them when they are sworn in or do you trust that the marketing spin somehow meets your needs? Partisan politics is a process of negotiations where voters are not in a position of power.
Don’t be surprised if there is no connection between the campaign promises and the votes they cast after the first of the year. The reality is that the real campaign promises were made behind closed doors and you can bet those promises will be honored. They probably won’t be yours.
Voters don’t really have the stomach for the hard work it takes to keep elected officials feet to the fire. They just want someone else to do it. Partisan politicians count on that.
Don’t be surprised if we get what someone else paid for.
Posted in Political commentary, Snohomish County Political Commentary | Leave a Comment »