By MITCH LIES

Capital Press

SALEM — If lawmakers had their way, Oregon farmers would be prohibited from growing canola, be required to pay taxes on irrigation equipment, Christmas trees and nursery stock and would need to pay close attention to how they tether their dogs.

It’s the 2013 version of the Oregon Legislature, and everything from growing USDA-approved crops to feeding raccoons is at risk.

Yes, raccoons. Under Senate Bill 474, which passed the Senate by a vote of 16-14 March 5, raccoon feeders would be subject to a citation for placing or scattering “food, garbage or other attractant as to knowingly constitute a lure” for raccoons.

Known as the Rocky Raccoon bill, it now is in the House.

In the House is House Bill 2783, which specifies that a person commits the crime of animal neglect if, among other actions, they tether a dog with a leash of less than 15 feet or if a domestic animal is tethered “in a location that is not free of obstructions that could cause strangulation.”

In the Senate, SB494 would, with some exceptions, ban the “use of body-gripping traps” for animals. Ranchers and farmers trapping to address damage to livestock or crops would be exempt under the bill, but would be required to check traps every 24 hours.

Then there are the bills seeking to regulate crop practices.

A bill in the House, HB3171, seeks to expand the authority of counties to regulate pesticides.

Sponsored by Rep. Paul Holvey, D-Eugene, it provides exemptions to counties from what is known as the pesticide preemption law in certain cases. That law, which lawmakers adopted in 1996, stipulates that pesticide use regulations are left to the state.

Overall, the number of farm bills introduced this year isn’t unusual, said Paulette Pyle, a veteran farm lobbyist and grass roots coordinator for Oregonians for Food and Shelter.

“We always have a high number of bills that want to regulate water, ag practices and forestry practices,” said Pyle. “What is unusual this session is the bills are targeting practices based on what activists want.”

Several water bills have farmers concerned, including one that would impose a $100 water management fee on all water rights. The bill caps what an individual entity would pay at $1,000, meaning the city of Portland would pay the same amount as farmers, many of whom hold 10 or more water rights.

Also of concern is SB425, which would require the Oregon Water Resources Department to consider effects on wildlife and provide an opportunity for public comment when approving changes in water rights points of diversion.

SB433 would ban canola production in Oregon and subject those who grow it to a fine of up to $25,000.

Among genetic engineering bills introduced, one would establish a statewide ban on the production of some GE crops. A second would ban GE alfalfa production.

The GE alfalfa ban, called for in HB3290, has generated considerable concern from growers, many of whom are beginning to adopt the technology, said Scott Dahlman, executive director of Oregonians for Food and Shelter.

The bills and the practices they target raise a bigger question among farm representatives: Just how prescriptive should lawmakers be in addressing farm and ranching legislation?

“There are very few people in this building that understand agriculture from the ground level,” said Katie Fast, vice president of public policy for the Oregon Farm Bureau. “They don’t have the information to legislate the growing and raising of crops.”

“I think the Legislature should set broad policy on these things, but that’s why we have the Department of Agriculture to work with farmers on day-in and day-out issues,” Dahlman said.

“Sometimes legislators don’t have the time or expertise to regulate agriculture,” Pyle said. “It is something they should defer to the experts, which are the Oregon Department of Agriculture and the USDA.

“Lots of times, they pass laws they don’t really understand, and later they wish they hadn’t,” Pyle said.

When taken as a whole, the Legislature’s 2013 bills show a picture of what lawmakers believe farmers should be doing on their farms, farm lobbyist and former legislator Roger Beyer said. And the picture isn’t comforting, he aid.

“These bills demonstrate what others think you should or shouldn’t be doing on your farm, and what it could cost you,” Beyer said.

“If you look at just one bill, it might not seem that bad,” Dahlman said. “But when you are a farmer, you get all this coming at you from different directions, and it might not be in a cohesive manner.

“There is a risk as we add these layers and layers of regulations on agriculture,” Dahlman said.