Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Capital press. (Salem, OR) 19??-current | View Entire Issue (June 10, 2016)
June 10, 2016 CapitalPress.com 13 Groups spar over field burning changes By SEAN ELLIS Capital Press BOISE — Farm groups and public health advocates have a ways to go before reaching an agreement on proposed changes to Idaho’s crop residue burning pro- gram. The changes are being proposed by the Idaho De- partment of Environmental Quality as a way to avoid a large reduction in the num- ber of allowable burn days for farmers. Based on public com- ments submitted to the DEQ, the two sides are drifting far- ther apart on the proposal. Farmers in Idaho burn between 40,000 and 50,000 acres most years and use field burning as a tool to eradicate and prevent pests and diseases and decrease chemical and diesel use and Submitted photo A farm field in Idaho is burned to eradicate and control pests and diseases in this undated Idaho Department of Environmental Quality file photo. DEQ has proposed changes to the state’s crop residue burning program to avoid a scenario where allowable burn days in Idaho could be reduced by a third to half. soil erosion. DEQ officials can grant farmers permission to burn their fields only if ozone and small particulate matter levels aren’t expected to exceed 75 percent of the national stan- dard for those air pollutants during the burn day. Because the federal ozone standard was tightened Oct. 1, the number of allowable burn days in Idaho could be reduced by a third to half, ac- cording to DEQ. DEQ has proposed raising Idaho’s ozone standard to 90 percent of the federal standard to avoid that scenario. The de- partment has also proposed lowering the state standard for small particulate matter — PM 2.5 — to 65 percent of the national standard. DEQ officials say loosen- ing the state’s ozone standard while tightening the PM 2.5 standard will ensure public health is protected while con- tinuing to allow farmers to burn their fields. But environmental groups and public health advocates have asked DEQ to consid- er tightening the state’s PM 2.5 standard even further, to 60 percent of the national level. Farm groups oppose that and some disagree with tighten- ing the PM 2.5 standard at all. In comments submitted to DEQ, Justin McLeod, presi- dent of the Nezperce Prairie Grass Growers Association, said his group has great con- cern over the proposal to tighten the state’s PM 2.5 standard. The EPA has begun a re- view of the federal PM stan- dard “and our concern lies primarily with the likelihood that this standard will” be tightened, he stated. Public health advocates and environmental groups are pushing for an “equal” change in the state’s PM and ozone standards. PM 2.5 has been shown to have a greater effect on health than ozone, said Patti Go- ra-McRavin, who represents safe air advocates. If the state’s ozone stan- dard is loosened by 15 per- centage points, then the PM 2.5 standard should be tight- ened by that same amount to protect public health, she said. “We’re asking for an eq- uitable give on growers’ end for the ‘get’ that they would receive from this proposal by DEQ,” she said. Stacey Katseanes Satter- lee, executive director of the Idaho Grain Producers Asso- ciation, said the proposal to lower Idaho’s PM 2.5 stan- dard to 65 percent of the na- tional standard is a reasonable trade-off for increasing the ozone standard. But IGPA opposes lower- ing it further because of con- cern the federal standard for that pollutant will be tight- ened in the near future. “The variable here is the federal government,” she said. “They have shown a trend over time that they tight- en those federal standards, not loosen them.” WDFW’s new policy on WDFW puzzles over which pack killed heifer shooting wolves assigns Steps taken to stop second depredation field staff key role By DON JENKINS Ranchers expected to consult with state Capital Press By DON JENKINS Capital Press Washington’s new wolf-con- trol policy entrusts frontline state wildlife managers with de- ciding whether ranchers are do- ing enough to stop depredations. “They are the agency ex- perts,” state Department of Fish and Wildlife wolf policy coor- dinator Donny Martorello said Monday. “I think the protocol really (recognizes) that exper- tise.” To protect livestock, WDFW shot wolves in 2012 and 2014 under a policy that the depart- ment acknowledged was not well understood and lacked pop- ular support. The revamped policy caps a yearlong effort by the depart- ment’s Wolf Advisory Group, which includes ranchers and en- vironmentalists. The 17-mem- ber group last month agreed to a new policy, which WDFW officials have now fleshed out in a five-page document. The decision to shoot wolves will remain with WDFW Di- rector Jim Unsworth. But the new protocol for pushing the issue up to Unsworth includes giving WDFW wildlife conflict specialists around the state “full discretion” to oversee non-lethal means of stopping depredations. Washington Cattlemen’s As- sociation Executive Vice Pres- ident Jack Field, an advisory group member, said he support- ed relying on the judgment of WDFW field employees. “They know far better than Olympia what’s going on and what needs to happen,” he said. The policy applies to the eastern one-third of the state. Wolves are federally protect- ed in the western two-thirds of Washington and immune from lethal removal. The new protocol retains or elaborates on some of the main features of the old policy. Four depredations in a year or six over two years qualifies members of a pack for lethal removal, but only if ranch- ers tried to keep away wolves with measures such as lights, alarms, ribbons, dogs and cowboys. Martorello said the depart- ment wants to collaborate with rather than dictate to ranchers. “We want to have a relation- ship with producers,” he said. At a minimum, ranchers will be expected to remove or Courtesy of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has an- nounced its new policy for de- ciding when to kill wolves that have been attacking livestock. bury cattle or sheep carcasses and bones to keep from attract- ing wolves, plus use one other deterrence measure with the concurrence of a WDFW wild- life conflict specialist. If a depredation occurs, the new policy calls for all other feasible preventive measures to be employed. WDFW’s policy had been to re-evaluate preven- tive measures after each depre- dation, a source of frustration for some ranchers. So far this year, WDFW has confirmed that wolves killed a 8- to 9-month-old Holstein heifer in Stevens County in northeastern Washington and a calf in Asotin County in south- eastern Washington. In some cases, ranchers suspect wolves of killing livestock, but WDFW investigators find the evidence inconclusive. Stevens County rancher Scott Nielsen, vice president of the Cattle Producers of Wash- ington, said ranchers already protect their livestock from predators without the state’s in- volvement. “I don’t think the game de- partment should be making operating decisions for me,” he said. “If I had an issue (with wolves), I would bring in the sheriff. If the sheriff chose to collaborate with the department, so be it.” Most of the state’s wolves are in northeastern Washington. Nielsen said withholding le- thal removal because a rancher didn’t collaborate with the state would be unpopular. “I think that won’t fly in this area,” he said. Center for Biological Di- versity wolf organizer Ama- roq Weiss said the new policy doesn’t confront whether shoot- ing wolves actually deters dep- redations. Washington wildlife man- agers are trying to identi- fy which wolf pack killed a heifer in northeastern Wash- ington, hoping to keep an accurate tally that could lead to lethal removal if there are three more depredations, the state’s wolf policy coordina- tor, Donny Martorello, said Tuesday. The Department of Fish and Wildlife confirmed May 30 that the 8- to 9-month-old Holstein had been killed by wolves in a fenced field on private property in southern Stevens County. The Huckleberry and Stranger packs overlap where the attack occurred. WDFW investigators hope the packs’ future movements will reveal which one killed the heifer, Martorello said. WDFW will consider shooting members of a pack responsible for four attacks on livestock or guard dogs in a year. Whichever pack is held responsible, it will be only the first strike. The Huckleberry pack mauled a sheep guard dog last year and killed at least 26 sheep in 2014, but has not yet been blamed for a depre- dation this year. One female member of the pack was shot in 2014 to deter the attacks on sheep. The shooting was the last time WDFW used le- thal control to stop wolf dep- redations. Courtesy of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife The state Department of Fish and Wildlife has refined its policy on when it will consider shooting wolves to protect livestock. However, in northeastern Washington, there are so many packs that man- agers sometimes have a hard time identifying which is responsible for a depredation. The Stranger pack formed last year when two wolves split from the Huckleberry pack. The attack on the heifer is the first test of WDFW’s re- vamped policy on reacting to wolf depredations. The owner moved the sur- viving 18 cows to a fenced field within sight of his home, Martorello said. WDFW also supplied the landowner with eight flash- ing lights and the services of a range rider, he said. The measures represent everything WDFW and the producer will do to stop a second depredation, Mar- torello said. In previous years, WD- FW’s policy called for non-lethal deterrence mea- sures to be re-evaluated after every depredation. WDFW acknowledged the protocol was confusing and frustrating to ranchers and wolf advocates, leading to uncertainty about the depart- ment’s next move. “We’ve already done the ramp-up in its entirety, after the first depredation,” Mar- torello said. “We’re doing the best we can to prevent anoth- er depredation.” WDFW recently adopted the new lethal-removal pro- tocol, which was agreed to by the department’s Wolf Ad- visory Group. Conservationists in the group embraced the policy because it will require live- stock owners to work with WDFW on preventing dep- redations. Representatives of producers hope the protocol will lead WDFW to being consistent about when it will use lethal control. “If we get to that situa- tion, we have to demonstrate that consistency,” Martorello said. Oregon mulls change to noxious weed strategy Legislative concept adds $3.3 million to fight weeds By MATEUSZ PERKOWSKI Capital Press JOHN DAY, Ore. — Ore- gon’s farm regulators want to overhaul their noxious weed control strategy to focus on invasives that haven’t yet gained a strong foothold in the state. The current weed control program at the Oregon De- partment of Agriculture ob- tains about 40 percent of its funding from federal agencies and thus focuses much of its attention on public lands. This approach means that ODA’s highly trained weed specialists are often battling lower-priority “B list” weeds that are already abundant in some regions, Helmuth rather than “A Rogg list” weeds that can still be eradicated, said Helmuth Rogg, director of the agency’s plant program area. The agency would pre- fer to put more emphasis on an “early detection rapid re- sponse” approach to economi- cally damaging “A list” weeds while delegating the fight against “B list” weeds on pub- lic land to counties, Rogg said at the June 6 Oregon Board of Agriculture meeting. “We’re trying to figure out how to best use the limited resources of state and federal funding,” he said. To make this change, ODA is contemplating a “legisla- tive concept” to bring before Oregon lawmakers in 2017 that would increase funding for state and county noxious weed control programs by $3.3 million. ODA’s current noxious weed budget of about $2.2 million in the 2015-17 bienni- um would be increased by $1.5 million, which would strength- en its “early detection rapid re- sponse” and biological control efforts, among other activities, and create a new aquatic weed specialist position. The Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board is spend- ing millions of dollars to im- prove water quality across the state but invasive weeds can undermine those projects, Rogg said. Weeds like flowering rush, newly discovered in Oregon in 2014, also pose a risk to ir- rigation canals, so an aquatic weed specialist is needed to concentrate on such threats, he said. “We need to save that investment.” Only 23 of Oregon’s 36 counties have weed control districts dedicated to fighting invasives, so under the “leg- islative concept” $1.8 million would fund such programs across the state. Federal funding of $1.2 million is needed to “keep the lights on” for the state nox- ious weed program, but under the ODA’s proposal, some of that money would be sub-con- tracted to county programs as necessary, Rogg said. Oregon farmers win radish seed crop ownership lawsuit By MATEUSZ PERKOWSKI Capital Press Oregon farmers have pre- vailed in a legal dispute with a bank over the ownership of radish seed they’d grown but hadn’t been paid for. Multiple farms in Oregon’s Willamette Valley grew the radish seed in 2014 for Cover Crop Solutions, a Pennsylva- nia company that became in- solvent before taking delivery of the crop. Last year, the company’s creditor — Northwest Bank of Warren, Pa. — filed a lawsuit against the growers, claiming to own the radish seed they’d produced because it served as collateral for a $7 million loan. U.S. District Judge Michael Mosman has now dismissed Northwest Bank’s arguments that growers relinquished ownership of the seed when they delivered it to a cleaner. The June 6 ruling effective- ly means they can sell the crop rather than turn it over to the bank. “It was a total victory,” said Paul Conable, attorney for the farms. James Ray Streinz, attorney for Northwest Bank, said his client did not wish to comment on the ruling. The bank had claimed that several seed cleaners effective- ly acted as “agents” of Cover Crop Solutions, so the radish seed they were storing was that company’s inventory. When Cover Crops Solu- tions became insolvent, the inventory became the bank’s collateral because its liens on the crop were of a higher pri- ority than liens taken out by farmers, according to North- west Bank’s attorneys. Conable said Mosman’s re- jection of this claim shows he understands the functioning of the seed industry. “It would have changed the seed business if by turn- ing over seed to the clean- er to get cleaned, you were turning it over to the purchas- er without getting paid,” he said. Before reaching a decision on the question of whether seed cleaners were “agents” of Cover Crop Solutions, Mos- man dismissed the bank’s law- suit against several growers who had retained possession of the seed. In May, the CHS cooper- ative announced it would li- cense the radish seed variety in question now that Cover Crop Solutions is being liquidated or dissolved.
