Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About The Baker County press. (Baker City, Ore.) 2014-current | View Entire Issue (Jan. 29, 2016)
FRIDAY, JANUARY 29, 2016 THE BAKER COUNTY PRESS — 7 Outdoor Recreation The boom in the cougar population Hunt results due by Jan. 31 egon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) information. The only areas in the last decade where the ZMQ has either been reportedly reached or exceeded have been: THE OUTDOOR COLUMN the Coast/ North Cascade By Todd Arriola zone, at 120 In stark contrast to the in 2011, 120 Gray Wolf/Greater Sage- in 2012, and, 130 in 2013 Grouse/Virtually Take (with a ZMQ of 120 then); Your Pick debates, pouring and, the Columbia Basin through details related zone, at 42 in 2005 (with a to cougars and cougar ZMQ of 19 then). management in Oregon All of the zones—Coast/ has led me to this singular North Cascade, South- opinion, if I were forced to west Cascade, Southeast only express the one: there Cascade, Columbia Basin, are thousands of cougars Blue Mountains, and, in Oregon, and miracu- Southeast Oregon—remain lously reaching the total open, as of January 15th, Zone Mortality Quotas but, it is possible, though, (ZMQ) this year, which is unlikely, that any of the encouraged—challenged, zones could have reached rather—by the State, their ZMQ. It always pays wouldn’t harm the popula- to check with ODFW first. tion one bit. The fact that a hunter is That may very well be allowed two cougar tags a broad generalization, per year (no spotted kit- however, to me, one of the tens, or, females with spot- most noticeable indications ted kittens), with the sea- of that, as far as cougars son running year long (or are concerned, is the total until ZMQs have been met, ZMQ of 970 this year, whichever occurs first), representing an increase of should be an encouraging roughly 25% above 2015’s component in the quest total quota of 777. to find, and, harvest this This year’s total ZMQ clever mammal. However, was the first change in that there are a couple of issues number since 2006 (the affecting the potential for first year of the Cougar a successful hunt to begin Management Plan), when with. it was increased from 580 Since cougars are classi- to 777, according to Or- fied as big game mammals in Oregon, and, not preda- tors, as far as hunting regu- lations are concerned, they can only be hunted from ½ hour before sunrise, to ½ hour after sunset. Personally, this may not currently prove to be much of an issue for me, since it should be noted that cougars have extraordi- nary vision, and, are both nocturnal and crepuscular hunters (active during the twilight hours of dawn and dusk). In other words, I may not be so quick to volunteer to hunt them at night anyway. Another issue involves the method one chooses in order to hunt cougars. Currently, the regulations handbook has a simple statement, courtesy of Measure 18, the Oregon Ban on Baited Bear Hunt- ing and Cougar Hunting with Dogs Act, passed by Oregonian voters in 1994: “No person shall use dogs for taking or pursuit of cougar.” The most obvious prob- lem with that is, dogs are the most effective method for hunting cougars and, “Most cougar are taken when hunters are pursuing other species,” according to ODFW. There are bills in the works, which may allow individual Counties to decide whether dogs are allowed, and one can become an “agent” for ODFW, using dogs for cougar hunting (ODFW does, while the public inexplicably cannot), but, most people are stuck with the no-dog rule for now. The State isn’t slated to run out of cougars any time soon, since it’s esti- mated that there are around 6,000, of them, with 4,000 of those estimated to be adults, according to ODFW. Research conducted by ODFW has noted effects on prey, a cougar’s favorite being deer and elk, includ- ing fawns and calves. Among other points, in northeast Oregon, ODFW discovered that, on aver- age, an adult cougar kills one deer or elk per week; high levels of hunter harvest can reduce local cougar populations; and, benefits of target areas can last for years. Removing a total of 291 cougars (this doesn’t include ones taken by hunters or on damage com- plaints) from the target ar- eas including the Heppner, Steens Mountain, Ukiah, Warner, and, Wenaha Wild- life Management Units (WMU) has resulted in the most dramatic results in the Heppner and Ukiah units: elk calf survival has doubled; the Ukiah elk population has grown by 500 since 2010; and, the Heppner elk population has grown by 2,200 since 2007, according to ODFW. What cougar hunting may look like in the future, I can’t say, but in my humble opinion, having effective methods, even controversial ones (isn’t everything controversial in Oregon?) at one’s disposal, in order to hunt predators with an increased chance of success, makes more sense than removing those tools. Period… sioners for adoption into the County’s Natural Re- sources Plan (NRP), with a motion from Justus, and a second from Fleming. The Board will vote whether to adopt the sec- tion as part of the NRP as recommended by the NRAC, at a future, regular Commission session, the first of which will be held on Wednesday, February 3, 2016, at 9 a.m., in the Commission Chambers. Defrees began a discus- sion about a 2015 Baker County Wildfire Analysis. “The purpose of this docu- ment is to brief the Baker County Natural Resource Advisory Committee (BCNRAC) members on the issues regarding the catastrophic wildfires that burned in Baker County in 2015. This document is produced by the For- estry subcommittee of BCNRAC to assist mem- bers reviewing the Wildfire section of the Natural Resource Plan,” according to the document. This document, not meant to be a part of the NRP, Defrees said, includes details about background information, a section about lessons learned, problems, and challenges, conclusions, and, short- and long-term recommendations. Among the lessons learned, problems, and, challenges: excessive fuel loads; slow decisions, or, no decision, or, bad decision making in federal agency leadership; federal agencies lack skill at coor- dinating with other agen- cies; wrong incentives/cen- tral planning process/big business; lack of logging crews and federal infra- structure; environmental bureaucracy; equipment underutilized; and, the philosophy that fires are “good and natural.” A lengthy discussion followed this topic, regard- ing timeframes for federal (BLM or USFS) approval of mining Plans of Opera- tion (POO). The discussion was related to whether the fol- lowing paragraph, in the Mining section of the NRP, should be amended or left as-is: “It is the policy of Baker County that approval of locatable minerals Plans of Operation by federal land management agencies must take place within one year from submittal of a com- plete plan. Baker County must be kept informed if this timeframe cannot be met and the County must be provided the reasons for the delay.” The mining section has been a subject of con- siderable debate, chiefly between Anderson and Alexander with Anderson pushing for a quicker, more streamlined approval process as he commented about the overreaching authority of the agencies, and, the need to mine, and, provide employ- ment, while Alexander has spoken about the laws and regulations that have to be followed, the length of time necessary for approv- als, and, the difficulties having a POO approved. Alexander included the following in a document, meant to be a guide about the timeframes for approv- als: Alexander said, “I sug- gest that putting the agen- cies on notice that they have one year to complete the environmental analysis, and having them report back to the County if they have not completed their work, is the best we can hope for under current laws and regulations. I suggest the mining section of the NRAC Plan (NRP) not be revised.” A motion was made by Long to keep the Mining section as-is, and Braswell seconded that motion. The motion passed with a majority vote. McQuisten, and (Ken) Alexander provided com- ments during the final Pub- lic Participation segment of the meeting. Among other points, McQuisten stated he hadn’t attended an NRAC meeting before, he agrees with Anderson’s opinions, he said he plans to con- tinue learning more about Federal agencies’ roles and authorities, and, he thinks Apache County, Arizona has provided a good model regarding mining issues, and the County’s role. Alexander said he’s been attempting to form solutions to the Federal government’s tendency to ignore its own regula- tions and timeframes with POO approvals, etc., while avoiding litigation with those agencies. Havey said he’d gather more details related the is- sue, with the ultimate goal of holding the agencies accountable for their own regulations and time- frames. Bruland informed the group that the next NRAC meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, February 23, 2016, at 3 p.m., in the Commission Chambers. The agenda will tentatively include guest speaker Matt Kerns, and, a discussion regarding the Wildfire section of the NRP. NRAC CONTINUED FROM PAGE 3 Harvey provided those present with an update regarding the overall coor- dination process between the County and State and Federal agencies. He said that meetings with the Bureau of Land Manage- ment (BLM) are going well, as well as the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF), and the United States Forest Ser- vice (USFS). He said that BLM and ODFW are addressing feed site issues in the Auburn area together, and ODFW and ODF are working well together on logging proj- ects, including the Pilcher Creek area. Harvey said that the East Face project meetings and planning are going well, with the La Grande District USFS. Copies of the five-page Water and Water Rights proposed section were handed out to the Commit- tee for review and further editing, followed by an ini- tial discussion about some technical and language changes, by Jan Kerns, who was instrumental in drafting the section. Language changes and other details were fur- ther discussed among the group, and Bruland asked for a motion to approve the Water and Water Rights section. The section was ap- proved by the NRAC for recommendation to the County Board of Commis- SALEM, Ore.—Any hunter who purchased 2015 big game or turkey tags needs to report their hunt results by the deadline, which is Jan. 31, 2016 for most tags. Hunters are required to report on each deer, elk, cougar, bear, pronghorn and turkey tag purchased—even if they were not successful or did not hunt. Sports Pac license holders need to report on each big game or turkey tag issued. Hunters have two ways to report: Online via reportmyhunt.com or www.odfw.com. Hunt- ers without Internet access who wish to report online can visit an ODFW office with a computer available for Hunter Reporting (ODFW field or regional offices in Adair Village/Corvallis, Bend, Clackamas, La Grande, Portland-Sauvie Island, Roseburg, Salem Headquarters, Springfield, Tillamook.) By telephone: Call 1-866-947-6339 to talk to a cus- tomer service representative. Hours: 6 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Pacific Time, seven days a week. Reporting deadlines are: Jan. 31, 2016 for all 2015 hunts that end by Dec. 31, 2015 April 15, 2016 for all 2015 hunts that end between Jan. 1- March 31, 2016 Hunters need the following pieces of information to report, which takes just a couple of minutes: Hunter/Angler ID number (located on ODFW licenses, tags and applications; this is a permanent number that stays the same from year-to-year) The two digit Wildlife Management Unit (WMU) number of the Unit you hunted in most and the Unit you harvested an animal in if successful (see pages 78-79 of 2015 Big Game Regulations or Hunting Unit Maps webpage). The total number of days hunted (including mentoring youth), the number of days hunted in the WMU hunted most, and the number of days hunted in the WMU you harvested an animal in if successful. $25 penalty for not reporting deer and elk tags Hunters who fail to report 2015 deer or elk tags on time will be penalized $25 when they purchase a 2017 hunting license. This penalty is assessed once, regardless of the number of unreported tags. As of Jan. 6, 2016, about 50% of elk tags, 48% of buck deer tags and 60% of antlerless deer tags had been reported. “The information hunters provide is used when setting controlled hunt tag numbers and hunting seasons,” said ODFW Gvame Program Manager Tom Thornton. “We re- ally appreciate hunters taking a few minutes of their time to complete the report.” ODFW used to get this data through phone surveys but these became more difficult and expensive as hunters moved or screened their calls. The mandatory reporting program was put in place in 2007 so these calls could be phased out. A penalty of $25 was added three years ago because even after several years promoting the program and pro- viding incentives to report, only about 40 percent of tags were being reported on time. This rate was too low to for ODFW to even use the data. After the penalty was implemented for 2012 tags, rates jumped to 80 percent or more. This has allowed ODFW to phase out its big game survey calls; the agency no longer makes these calls. Chance to win special big game tag Hunters who report on time are entered into a draw- ing to win a special big game tag. ODFW selects three names each year and the winners can choose a deer, elk or pronghorn tag. Hunters who win may hunt in an expand- ed hunt area and during an extended season, similar to auction and raffle tags that hunters can pay thousands for. Burns man cited for having skulls Submitted Photo. A Burns man illegally possessed “game parts.” On January 21, 2016, at approximately 12:15 p.m. an OSP Fish and Wildlife trooper received an anonymous game complaint originating in the Burns area regard- ing a person to be in possession of multiple trophy mule deer. OSP Fish and Wildlife troopers contacted, Jaden Simpson, age 19, from Burns, and learned that he was in possession of four (4) trophy buck skulls. OSP Fish and Wildlife troopers seized the four trophy buck skulls. SIMPSON was criminally cited for four (4) counts of Illegal Possession of Game Parts-Mule Deer Skulls and other wildlife charges will be forwarded to the Harney County District Attorney's Office for consider- ation. OSP Fish and Wildlife troopers were assisted by OSP Patrol Division troopers with the investigation.