12 CapitalPress.com
Upstream
CONTINUED from Page 1
the impaired waters listing pro-
gram and those related to the
public opinion research.”
Wasserman declined to
comment.
The newly available re-
cords, released in response to
a Freedom of Information Act
request by the Capital Press,
reveal more details about
EPA’s part in an advocacy
campaign that some federal
lawmakers have called an ille-
gal lobbying effort that falsely
portrayed farmers as unregu-
lated polluters.
EPA grants totaling some
$655,000 over ive years were
passed from the isheries com-
mission to the tribe to support
What’s Upstream.
EPA ended its support in
April after the complaints
August 12, 2016
from lawmakers. The EPA’s
Ofice of Inspector General is
auditing how the money was
used.
EPA Paciic Northwest Re-
gional Administrator Dennis
McLerran has described the
agency’s role in What’s Up-
stream as “technical input.”
An EPA spokesman conirmed
this week that McLerran was
referring to the agency’s de-
tailed review of the What’s
Upstream website.
An email from Chang to
the isheries commission last
spring shows the EPA was
concerned that what was in-
tended to be a broad effort
to educate the public about
preventing Puget Sound pol-
lution had turned into a media
and political campaign to reg-
ulate farmers.
Later, the EPA questioned
how the website presented the
results of two public opinion
Don Jenkins/Capital Press
A What’s Upstream billboard in Olympia advertises a website that
advocates for more strict regulations on farmers. The Environmen-
tal Protection Agency went over the What’s Upstream website line-
by-line last year, trying with mixed success to tone down the site’s
attacks on agriculture, according to newly released EPA records.
surveys conducted by Strat-
egies 360, a Seattle lobbying
irm hired by the tribe to de-
velop the advocacy campaign.
The surveys, linked to on
the website, found that the
public generally held farmers
in high regard and that most
respondents were satisied
with water quality.
The website’s summary of
the surveys stressed respons-
es that indicated high concern
about agriculture’s impact on
water and strong support for
mandatory 100-foot buffers
between farm ields and wa-
terways.
“There will be many ques-
tions about the public opinion
research. Intelligent consum-
ers of the information on this
website will need a basis for
concluding that these claims
are credible,” Chang wrote in
an October email.
The EPA did not comment
on the images that What’s
Upstream used to link agri-
culture with water pollution.
The images included photos
of cows standing in streams.
The photos were not taken in
Washington.
Strategies 360 Vice Presi-
dent of Communications Jeff
Reading said the photos were
“tools in an information cam-
paign.”
“I don’t know that the imag-
es one uses has to be somehow
geographically associated with
the issue in question,” he said.
In February, a month be-
fore the website drew wide-
spread attention from law-
makers, the EPA again urged
What’s Upstream to subject
its materials to an indepen-
dent review.
“As we have said in pre-
vious comments, the deliv-
erables produced under this
project do need technical
review,” the EPA comment-
ed in a review of plans by
What’s Upstream to advertise
in newspapers and on radio
and billboards. “The products
generated under this award
are highly visible and are in-
tended to inluence public
opinion.”
What’s Upstream did
remove from the website
claims about agriculture’s
contribution to water pollu-
tion that EPA reviewers said
were unsupported by current
data.
Eagles
CONTINUED from Page 1
Three ranchers in the Wil-
lamette Valley acknowledged
having serious problems with
eagles but did not want to talk
on the record or give their
names.
Because ranchers don’t
report the depredation, repre-
sentatives of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, the Farm
Service Agency and USDA
Wildlife Services say they are
unaware that eagles killing
lambs are a widespread prob-
lem.
Lack of reporting
Emily Ruckert, a sheep
rancher in Tangent, Ore., said
most producers don’t know
how to report eagle depre-
dation or that services or re-
sources exist and don’t have
time to go through the report-
ing process so they choose to
handle it themselves.
“I’ve been dealing with ea-
gles my whole life,” Ruckert
said. “I’ve never even heard
of reporting to Fish and Wild-
life. There’s really nothing we
can do.”
Statistics are equally hard
to ind. A USDA survey found
that eagles killed 6,300 sheep
and lambs in 2004, the last
year those statistics were re-
ported separately. The depart-
ment stopped reporting spe-
ciically on eagle depredation
after that but in 2009 reported
that predators killed 247,200
sheep and lambs.
Dave Williams, Oregon
state director of USDA Wild-
life Services, said ranchers
reported only three cases of
eagle depredation on lambs to
his agency between 2011 and
2015.
Representatives at the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service said
the agency has received no re-
ports of eagle depredation in
recent years.
According to the agency,
“depredation” is damage to
property or a threat to human
health and safety caused by
eagles.
Eagles are protected by the
Bald and Golden Eagle Act
and the Migratory Bird Act,
which means ranchers are not
allowed to scare, harass or
take eagles predating on their
livestock without obtaining a
permit from the USFWS.
In addition to being the na-
tional bird, bald eagles were
protected under the Endan-
gered Species Act until 2007.
Williams said eagles are
doing well now and are not
endangered but are still pro-
tected.
Rodger Ruckert, who is
Emily Ruckert’s father and
partner in her sheep operation,
said he has seen the number of
eagles killing lambs drastical-
ly increase as their population
has grown.
“When I was a kid, if you
saw one eagle it was quite a
sight. Now there’s easily 15 to
20 eagles around the pastures
Janae Sargent/Capital Press
Issaiah Wahl tags lambs at Wahl Grazing. He said the farm is targeted more by bald eagles but that
both golden and bald eagles attack their lambs.
Courtesy of Kathy Munsel, ODFW
A captive American Bald
Eagle is shown. The bald eagle
breeds in 32 of 36 Oregon
counties and is found through-
out the state.
on any given day,” Ruckert
said.
Ruckert said most eagles
don’t migrate anymore and
that he has several native
immature eagles that eat his
lamb crop all summer long.
Ruckert said he has lost
10 percent of his lock of 300
lambs to eagle depredation,
which is a devastating loss to
him and his family.
“These producers basically
have to watch their livestock
getting eaten and they have to
pay the bill,” said Carter Wil-
ford, a licensed falconer and
ranching advocate from Utah.
Wahl explained that she
has seen eagles grab small
lambs and drop them from
heights to kill them and has
seen eagles pecking at the
heads of larger lambs until
they die.
Emily Ruckert said she
came out to her ield one
day and saw two eagles on a
month-old lamb pecking its
brains out while it was still
alive.
The USFWS offers permits
and resources for ranchers ex-
periencing eagle depredation
but Jason Holm, the assistant
regional director of external
affairs, said the agency has
not received any applications
for an eagle depredation per-
mit for agricultural loss in re-
cent memory.
Because eagles are protect-
ed by federal laws, ranchers
need permits to disturb bald or
golden eagles that attack their
livestock.
Hazing permits
Federal
Prices
CONTINUED from Page 1
values following several years of
“sky-high” commodity prices. Espe-
cially in the Corn Belt, where the re-
port shows land values have dropped
by 1.9 percent on average, Eborn said
buyers had been paying more than
they could generate from their land.
“I’d say the bubble is getting ready
to burst and the land values will prob-
ably go down for several years. That’s
just my gut,” Eborn said.
law
prohibits
wounding or killing eagles so
the permits allow only hazing
eagles, which means using
nonlethal means to scare them
away from livestock.
Wilford said accessing re-
sources is bureaucratic and
complicated and ranchers are
frustrated by the federal gov-
ernment when it comes to ea-
gle depredation.
To apply for a permit to
haze eagles, ranchers need to
have someone from USDA
Wildlife Services inspect the
lamb carcass and declare that
the animal was killed because
of depredation.
After a depredation is de-
clared, Wilford said it is still
up to the discretion of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service
whether to grant a rancher a
permit to haze the eagles.
Williams said investigators
examine the carcasses to look
for talon marks and determine
if the animal was killed by an
eagle or died of other causes
and was fed on by an eagle af-
ter its death.
Wilford said having a
USDA Wildlife Services in-
vestigation done can take up
to two weeks, which causes
further problems for ranchers.
Between the time a report
is made and when an investi-
gator arrives to examine the
carcass, it is vulnerable to be-
ing eaten by other predators
and draws other eagles and
predators to the pasture look-
ing for more lambs to kill.
Holm said the Fish and
Wildlife Service takes ap-
proximately 30 to 90 days to
process completed permit ap-
plications once the investiga-
tion is done and the depreda-
tion order is declared.
Williams, of USDA Wild-
life Services, agreed it can be
a problem for ranchers and
suggested tarping carcasses to
protect them from other ani-
mals.
They also recommended
taking photos of the carcass
and keeping as much evidence
as possible for the application.
Wahl said asking her to
photograph a carcass or pro-
tect it is unrealistic because
she runs 6,000 sheep on 15
pastures and 3,000 acres and
Eborn still receives phone calls
from retirement funds and investment
irms inquiring about the economics
of Idaho farms, which offer diverse
crop rotations and didn’t inlate in
value as rapidly as Midwestern land.
Many investors have been leasing the
land back to the growers who former-
ly owned it, Eborn said.
Doug Robison, senior vice pres-
ident for Western Idaho with North-
west Farm Credit Services, said his
employer’s internal data conirms
Idaho land values have continued to
strengthen, likely because the state
can’t keep track of each inci-
dent.
An eagle depredation per-
mit application requires a
$100 fee in addition to docu-
mentation and a depredation
order from the USDA Wild-
life Services.
Wilford said he thinks
ranchers don’t submit reports
or eagle permit applications
because the process is so dif-
icult.
“Most ranchers either have
given up on the issue, don’t
have hope or don’t know any
help exists,” Wilford said.
Permit experience
Larry Ruckert, Emily
Ruckert’s uncle and owner of
a separate small sheep opera-
tion, obtained an eagle depre-
dation permit 15 years ago af-
ter seeing a large golden eagle
kill a 20-pound lamb.
Ruckert said he had to call
ive different people to igure
out how to apply for a permit.
It allowed him to use ire-
cracker shells to scare eagles
away.
He said it gave him tem-
porary relief but when he
applied for a permit the next
year, he never got a response
and gave up.
Federal law and USFWS
regulations once allowed li-
censed falconers to trap im-
mature golden eagles attack-
ing livestock but the agency
stopped the practice in 2009,
said Sterling Brown, vice
president of public policy for
the Utah Farm Bureau Feder-
ation.
“The (USFWS) does not
believe livestock losses are
signiicant and has ceased
falconers’ access to eagles,”
Brown said.
Holm said it is up to state
governors to issue depreda-
tion orders and allow falcon-
ers to come into an area to trap
predatory golden eagles and
keep them for the sport of fal-
conry. In his time at the Fish
and Wildlife Service, Holm
said he has only seen depreda-
tion orders used in Wyoming.
Holm said ranchers should
irst contact USDA Wildlife
Services to assess if livestock
damage was caused by eagles.
remains appealing to investors who
still can’t ind a better alternative to
farm land.
“We’re also seeing a decrease in
the number of transactions on the
marketplace, so supply remains ex-
tremely tight,” Robison said, adding
tight land supply has also held up ag-
ricultural land values in “other parts
of the Northwest.”
Robison anticipates land values
in Idaho’s core growing areas will
remain strong in the near term, while
marginal land will be the irst to de-
cline in value.
Courtesy of Laura Wahl
To combat eagle depredation in the pastures, Laura Wahl brings
young lambs to an indoor lambing facility for the irst ive days after
they are born. The space is too small to hold a large number of
lambs so she runs them outdoors once they are big enough to be
less vulnerable to eagles.
Compensation
available
There is also a compensa-
tion program that was built
into the 2014 Farm Bill that
authorizes payments of up to
75 percent of the market value
of livestock lost to federally
protected animals for up to
$125,000, but few ranchers
aware of it.
Taylor Murray, outreach
specialist for the Oregon
Farm Service Agency, said his
ofice has never had an appli-
cation for compensation for
eagle depredation on lambs.
He said that the Farm Service
Livestock Disaster specialist
has never heard of eagle dep-
redation in Oregon.
Ranchers must apply at
their local Farm Service
Agency ofice and submit a
“Notice of Loss” form within
30 days of the loss.
Wahl said she had never
heard of a compensation pro-
gram but will apply now that
she knows.
Wilford stressed that he be-
lieves in protecting eagles but
that there is now enough eagle
protection to warrant giving
falconers access to predatory
golden eagles and inding oth-
er resources for ranchers.
Falconers cannot trap bald
eagles.
He said the system for ob-
taining permits and compen-
sation needs to be simpliied
and that the USFWS needs to
look at how to prevent dep-
redation rather than dealing
with it after it happens.
Preventive
measures
Ranchers have found some
preventive measures to be
helpful.
Wahl said the biggest
help for her operation is to
lamb in a barn while the
lambs are smallest and most
vulnerable.
When a lamb is born in a
pasture at Wahl Grazing, em-
ployees immediately transport
it into a large barn, where it is
protected from eagles.
Rexburg potato farmer Lynn Wil-
cox has continued to see lofty sale
prices of farms in his area. None-
theless, he succeeded in lowering
many of his rental agreements this
season and intends to renegotiate the
remainder of his agreements next
season.
“There’s no way you can farm as
much out of the land as people are
asking for it,” Wilcox said. “Outside
of insurance companies and invest-
ment groups, nobody has got money
now.”
McCammon rancher Jim Guthrie
But because of space
constrictions, Wahl said she
has to turn out the lambs af-
ter five days.
Wahl also has guard dogs
but said they don’t do much
to protect lambs from ea-
gles.
Emily Ruckert said she
has protection llamas to deal
with other predators but that
she hasn’t found them to be
helpful against eagles. She
also does lambing indoors
when possible and stays
with the lambs whenever
they are outside.
Williams said the biggest
thing that draws eagles to a
pasture is carcasses. He said
an eagle will first be drawn
to a field to feed off a dead
lamb and may then associ-
ate the field with easy food.
He suggested being vig-
ilant in cleaning up and
disposing of carcasses be-
fore eagles have a chance
to associate lambs with
food.
Wilford stressed the im-
portance of ranchers report-
ing eagle depredation —
even if they don’t receive a
permit or compensation.
“It would be so helpful if
people reported more,” said
Wilford. “It would help to
validate that there is a prob-
lem. The service is saying
they don’t get reports of
depredation so they can’t do
anything.”
Brown agreed that ranch-
ers aren’t reporting in any
of the Western states but
that the Utah Farm Bureau
and its Western counterparts
want to do more and assist
ranchers.
“We want to protect ea-
gles, migratory birds and
predators but there also
needs to be a program
in place that is efficient
enough to allow livestock
producers to receive help
when livestock is being
depredated on,” Brown
said. “Ranchers aren’t
looking for handouts, just
fair compensation for their
losses.”
blames “outside interests” for paying
more than land is worth and skewing
the market. Guthrie said pasture land
in his area sells immediately, and he’s
had to cut back on his herd, unable to
buy or lease grazing ground.
“I would expect prices to keep go-
ing up, but it’s not relective of what
producers can afford to pay,” Guthrie
said.
Oakley grower Randy Hardy be-
lieves competition with dairies that
“gobble up land” to support their
herds has also kept Idaho land values
high.