Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About The Baker County press. (Baker City, Ore.) 2014-current | View Entire Issue (Feb. 5, 2016)
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2016 THE BAKER COUNTY PRESS — 7 Outdoor Recreation Lead ammunition the subject Public input sought on of ODFW / OSU survey events out- side the State (the possible restoration of California Condors in northern California), or litigation, legislation or a ballot ini- tiative, could affect the use of lead ammunition THE OUTDOOR COLUMN and hunt- ing wildlife By Todd Arriola management Early last month, I in Oregon. wrote an article about the For these reasons, the planned release of Califor- Department believed it was nia Condors, within a few important to understand the years, by the Yurok Tribe views of hunters and the of northern California, and public on this issue, and the expected migration to ensure that those views are Oregon. clearly understood, and can The Oregon Depart- be fairly represented in any ment of Fish and Wild- future discussions regard- life (ODFW), and the ing lead ammunition.” Oregon State University The survey included (OSU) Research Center more questions for the collaborated on a State hunters than the public lead survey, to assess the (both groups picked at opinions, and knowledge random, from all regions regarding lead ammuni- within the State). tion use of both hunters, This ratio makes sense, and non-hunters, which I because, as the introduc- also mentioned. I didn’t tion states, “The hunter expect to see the results of survey included 33 ques- that survey until the end of tions in order to get more winter, however, I received specifi c information on an email on January 26th, current fi rearm and ammu- with a summary. The dis- nition usage for big game appointing, but unsurpris- and unprotected mam- ing results tell me this: the mal and furbearer hunts. lead debate will continue Therefore, the general to be a long, divisive battle public survey consisted for anyone involved. of fewer questions. Both ODFW Wildlife Com- groups responded to a munications Coordinator subset of questions that Michelle Dennehy said, allowed comparisons of “There has been specula- opinions, knowledge, and tion that this survey was preferences between the a precursor to ODFW two groups.” implementing a ban or The fi rst response I restriction on the use of noted—mostly, because, lead ammunition. This is it reassured me that news, not the case. There are no and print isn’t dead, and proposals by ODFW or the people still read papers—is Oregon Fish and Wild- the answer to a question life Commission to ban that was posed to both or restrict the use of lead groups, regarding their ammunition for hunting in sources of information as- Oregon.” sociated with the effects of Stating a seemingly lead ammunition. prophetic view, prompted Topping the list of sourc- most likely by the knowl- es of information used edge that State issues by hunters, sportsmen’s frequently metamorphose magazines, ranked at about into heated, extended 63%, followed by mass battles, she said, “Howev- media, and other hunters, er, ODFW anticipates that both at about 60%. The public responded with the top three sources as mass media, at about 65%, followed by hunters they know, at about 46%, and conservation/environ- mental organizations, at about 43%. Both groups were then asked to rate the reliability of their sources of lead ammunition information. This is where predict- ably, among other specifi c responses, the two groups largely disagreed. Sportsmen’s magazines received the top score for reliability for hunters, at about 40%, however, mass media, the second- ranked source for the group, received only about 18% reliability, and other hunters, the third-ranked source, received a score of about 26% reliability. On the other hand, the public, whose top three sources were mass media, hunters they know, and conservation/environ- mental organizations, also ranked those sources in the same order, as the top three in reliability scoring, at about 35%, 28%, and 28%, respectively. Interest- ingly, both hunters, and the public ranked the OSU Extension Service, and ODFW employees near the bottom, in both a cited source of information, and reliability. Several key points were noted, as the survey provided some insight, regarding lead ammuni- tion use, and hunter versus public opinion. The fol- lowing was asked of both groups: “If Oregon were forced, such as by legis- lation or regulations, to phase out use of ammuni- tion that contains lead, by which year do you believe it would be realistic for the State and its hunters to adopt the change?” Ac- cording to the survey, the public supports an almost immediate phase out, while hunters support a gradual change, by around 2024. “If a program to reduce use of or eliminate am- munition that contains lead were created in Oregon, how would your participa- tion in hunting change, if Why advertise with us? David Conn david@thebakercountypress.com or call 541.523.5524 Baker City, Haines • Low rates per column inch & promotional deals • Color at no additional charge as space permits • Friendly, professional sales staff Wendee Morrissey wendee@thebakercountypress. com or call 541.805.1688. Sumpter, Bates, Richland, Halfway, Medical Springs, Keating Family owned and operated. Packed with local news! • All display ads are also posted to our Facebook page, which means thousands of individuals see your ad from that source alone. We’re the only local paper that offers this service! at all?” the survey asked hunters. The response was, overwhelmingly, that hunting activities wouldn’t change. When asked how knowl- edge of the effects of lead has infl uenced whether hunters consume, or use game meat harvested with lead ammunition, the sur- vey noted, “Most hunters have not stopped consum- ing game meat because of what they have learned about lead. Others are minimizing their exposure by trimming meat, or using non-lead ammunition.” The hunters cited the need to know about non- lead ammunition’s perfor- mance, as the top infl u- ence, whether to switch to non-lead ammunition, for hunting big game. The lowest-ranked infl u- ence cited was if the cost was 25%-50% higher than lead-based ammunition. When asked what would infl uence the switch to non-lead ammunition, for hunting unprotected mammals, or furbearers, the highest percentage responded that the switch would not be made, under any circumstances. The lowest-ranked infl u- ence was, again, if the cost was higher than lead-based ammunition. The survey shows that, if a program in the State were initiated to reduce lead exposure to both hu- mans and wildlife, it could be said that both hunters and the public basically would agree on regulations to prohibit lead-based am- munition solely in regions with demonstrated wildlife lead ingestion concerns. When asked about Statewide regulations to prohibit the use of lead-based ammunition, the public shows strong support, while hunters show strong opposition, as predicted. More notable proof that the two groups can agree periodically is offered in the following suggestions, receiving strong opposition from both hunters, and the public, according to the survey: “Region-specifi c regula- tions to allow use of lead- based ammunition, but require removal of gut pile from hunting fi eld; State- wide regulations to allow use of lead-based ammuni- tion, but require removal of gut pile from hunting fi eld; Voluntary coupon incentive program only in regions with demonstrated wildlife lead ingestion concerns.” A voluntary coupon incentive program—which includes a voucher for non-lead ammunition, for example. Statewide? Hunters strongly oppose it, while the public strongly supports it, according to the survey. Well, there it is, sports fans. It’s not a 100% com- plete picture of the state of the lead debate, but, an overview. Sometimes, hunters and the public can agree, and sometimes, they come dan- gerously close to fi nding the nearest UFC cage, in order to battle it out. I am 100% certain about one thing, though: we haven’t heard the last of it… restoration project PENDLETON, Ore. – In an effort to increase forest health across the Blue Mountains, the Ochoco, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests are proposing a landscape scale forest restoration and fuels reduction project on portions of approximately 1,270,000 acres of National Forest System (NFS) lands. “The current pace of active forest restoration on our forests is not keeping pace with forest growth, making them vulnerable to severe wildfi res and insect and disease outbreaks,” said Stacey Forson, Ochoco National Forest Supervisor. “In order to promote a healthy and productive forest, we must look at ways to do planning differently, at a larger scale and faster pace.” The Forest Resiliency Project aims to return the Blue Mountains to healthier conditions, reduce the risks of unusually large and severe wildfi res, and reintroduce the natural role of fi re to the landscape. The project will also contribute to local communities through reduced risk of fi re spread to adjacent lands, increased jobs and supple- mental benefi ts. The analysis area is located within the Blue Mountains in northeast Oregon and southeast Wash- ington and encompasses portions of 13 counties. The project proposes approximately 610,000 acres of thinning and prescribed fi re treatments across the three National Forests in areas with the greatest restoration need. All forest treatments will be designed to create for- est patterns that are more resilient to natural disturbance. Additionally, treatments will support safe and effective fi re management. Proposed treatments by forest include: • 118,000 acres of treatment on the Ochoco National Forest • 212,000 acres of treatment on the Umatilla National Forest • 280,000 acres of treatment on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest The proposal refl ects Forest Service commitment to focus on the urgent need to restore dry forest landscapes in eastern Oregon and Washington. Decades of fi re suppression, past timber management practices, and climate change have left more than 2.3 million acres of dry forests across the Blue Mountains overcrowded and vulnerable to unusual outbreaks of insects, diseases, and wildfi res. The 2015 fi re season set the record as the worst in U.S. history, with more than 282,000 acres reported as burned in the Blue Mountains. Because current forest project planning takes several years to complete, forest managers are unable to keep up with the pace of forest growth to restore these conditions. “To really make a difference on the landscape, we must try new approaches to project design and analysis, test new ways to reach decisions differently, while working closely with tribes, communities, and forest collaborative groups,” said Genevieve Masters, Umatilla National For- est Supervisor. The Blue Mountains Restoration Strategy Team, a dedicated interdisciplinary team, was hired by the Forest Service Pacifi c Northwest Region to tackle this critical issue and complete large landscape restoration plans, in- cluding the Forest Resiliency Project. The planning team intentionally designed this project at a large scale, explore new planning and analysis methods, and create fl exibility for local units during implementation. The draft envi- ronmental impact statement (EIS) will be released this summer with the fi nal EIS expected in December 2016. A separate Record of Decision will be prepared for each Forest and signed by the associated Forest Supervisor, but the analysis of effects will be completed in one EIS. The success of this project depends on frequent engagement among a variety of interested stakeholders, tribes and communities. Three local collaborative groups within the project area (the Ochoco Forest Restoration Collaborative, the Umatilla Forest Collaborative, and the Wallowa-Whitman Forest Collaborative) are actively engaged with the local forests on similar projects to inte- grate social values and address any local concerns about Forest Service project plans. “We want to do what is right for the landscape, while balancing social and economic issues. We encourage all citizens to contribute to this important project,” said Tom Montoya, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Supervisor. “Your feedback will help guide and improve this proposal through the planning process.” The comment period is an opportunity for the public to be involved in the process and offer thoughts on alterna- tive ways the Forest Service can accomplish the project purpose and need. Comments may be submitted during the 60-day scoping period, which begins with the Notice of Intent published in the Federal Register (anticipated to begin on February 5). Public engagement sessions will be scheduled during the month of March. Additional infor- mation on these meetings will be released in the future. The Proposed Action and maps can be downloaded from the web site: www.fs.usda.gov/goto/forestresiliency- project. Comments can be submitted online or by email: r6restorationprojects@fs.fed.us. Written comments may also be submitted to: Blue Mountains Restoration Strat- egy Team, 72510 Coyote Rd., Pendleton, OR 97801. The Forest Resiliency project is part of the Forest Service’s broader strategy to accelerate the pace and scale of forest restoration in eastern Oregon and Washington to provide both healthy forests and healthy communities. More information can be found on the Eastside Restora- tion website: http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/EastsideRes- toration or by contacting Ayn Shlisky (541-278-3762, ajshlisky@fs.fed.us) or Darcy Weseman (541-278-3755, deweseman@fs.fed.us).