March 3, 2017
CapitalPress.com
7
Oregon
Ranchers oppose cuts to wolf Natural resource groups skeptical
compensation, predator control of state science panel proposal
By MATEUSZ PERKOWSKI
Budget proposals
for Oregon
Department of
Agriculture curtail
predator programs
Capital Press
By MATEUSZ PERKOWSKI
Capital Press
Ranchers who suffer live-
stock losses from predators
stand to lose state support
under both budget scenarios
currently proposed for the
Oregon Department of Agri-
culture.
Funding aimed at predator
control and compensation for
livestock depredation would
be cut under recommenda-
tions from Gov. Kate Brown
as well as the co-chairs of the
Joint Ways and Means Com-
mittee, Sen. Richard Devlin,
D-Tualatin, and Rep. Nancy
Nathanson, D-Eugene.
The proposed cuts drew
objections from the live-
stock industry during a Feb.
22 hearing on ODA’s budget
before a panel of Joint Ways
and Means Committee mem-
bers focused on natural re-
sources.
As the wolf population
has grown in Oregon, live-
stock losses have been a
continuing source of frustra-
tion for ranchers, said Mike
Durgan of the Baker County
Wolf Compensation Adviso-
ry Committee.
Even when wolves don’t
kill cattle, they cause health
problems that are considered
indirect losses and aren’t
ODFW
Two adult wolves from the Walla Walla Pack were caught on re-
mote trail camera Jan. 16, 2016 in northern Umatilla County, Ore.
State legislators are considering reductions in funding for predator
control and reimbursing ranchers for livestock losses.
compensated with state dol-
lars, Durgan said.
Until wildlife officials
find a better way to manage
the predators, the livestock
industry should receive state
assistance, he said. “I want to
make it clear I’m not advo-
cating killing wolves today.”
Oregon counties have
steadfastly contributed mon-
ey to their partnership with
ODA and USDA’s Wildlife
Services division to pay
for predator control, even
as they’ve fallen short of
funds for public safety and
other vital services, said
Craig Pope, a Polk County
commissioner.
“We will have no one else
to call if we let this partner-
ship fail,” Pope said. “Coun-
ties cannot make up the dif-
ference of this funding hole.”
The Oregon Hunters As-
sociation and the Rocky
Mountain Elk Foundation
testified in favor or restoring
the state’s full contribution
to the predator control pro-
gram, which they say is nec-
essary to maintain a balance
between predators and deer
and elk.
Under the governor’s rec-
ommended 2017-2019 bud-
get, the ODA would eliminate
$460,000 in state funding for
the USDA’s Wildlife Ser-
vices division, which kills
problematic predators.
An ODA program that
compensates ranchers for
wolf depredation would be
funded at $211,000 under
the governor’s proposal,
compared to $233,000 in the
2015-2017 biennium.
The co-chairs of the Joint
Ways and Means Committee,
meanwhile, have proposed
a “budget framework” for
the upcoming biennium that
would decrease funding for
the wolf compensation pro-
gram “and/or reduce funding
for predator control.”
SALEM — A bill before
Oregon lawmakers has raised
a philosophical question: Is it
possible to achieve an unbi-
ased scientific opinion?
Or more precisely, is a
politically appointed scientif-
ic panel capable of reaching
such an impartial truth?
Legislators recently pon-
dered this problem while
deliberating on Senate Bill
198, which would create an
Independent Science Review
Board to ponder some of the
thornier controversies facing
state regulators.
Oregon’s farmers and
ranchers are no strangers to
science-related disputes over
wolves, pesticides and ge-
netically engineered crops,
among others.
Natural resource groups,
while commending SB 198’s
noble aim, are nonetheless
skeptical of how the review
process would play out in re-
ality.
State agencies that make
“high impact” decisions af-
fecting natural resource in-
dustries are already overseen
by boards and commissions,
said Mike Freese, vice pres-
ident of Associated Oregon
Industries, who testified at
a Feb. 22 hearing before the
Senate Environment and Nat-
ural Resources Committee.
“Simply having the same
debate in front of a new board
doesn’t make a lot of sense
to me,” said Freese, who tes-
tified on behalf of AOI and
other groups, including the
Oregon Farm Bureau, Oregon
Forest Industries Council and
Oregon Capitol.
Oregon Dairy Farmers Asso-
ciation.
Under SB 198, the Inde-
pendent Scientific Review
Board would be appointed
by the governor, just like the
commissions overseeing state
agencies. The governor would
also hire an administrator for
an Oregon State Universi-
ty “secretariat” to assist the
board with its work.
The current version of the
legislation doesn’t adequately
ensure the Independent Sci-
ence Review Board would
be free of political influence,
Freese said.
As a result, the new panel
would become another venue
for advocacy groups to seek
a stamp of approval for their
policy positions in “age-old
debates,” he said.
Natural resource indus-
tries are concerned about per-
ceived biases not only in the
panel’s conclusions, but also
in the type of questions that it
decides to pursue, Freese said.
Sen. Alan Olsen, R-Canby,
said he hopes the Independent
Science Review Board would
provide clear, transparent in-
formation to help lawmakers
make decisions involving
multiple agencies or scientific
disciplines.
Lawmakers would ideally
present scientific questions
for the panel a year before the
pertinent legislation is intro-
duced, he said.
It’s currently difficult for
legislators to decide whose
experts to listen to, said
Sen. Herman Baertschiger,
R-Grants Pass. “We’ve got
peer reviewed science on both
sides.”
Sen. Arnie Roblan, D-
Coos Bay, said he’s “seen be-
lief trump science repeatedly”
in the legislature and noted
that advocates often bring in
their own scientists to dis-
count opposing views.
“It puts the panel right in
the middle of the most con-
tentious issues we have in the
state,” Roblan said.
The current language of
SB 198 has raised some con-
cerns among task force mem-
bers who recommended the
Independent Science Review
Board’s creation.
While the task force gen-
erally supports the bill, the
administrator overseeing the
panel’s “secretariat” would be
more insulated from political
influence if appointed directly
by panel members, rather than
the governor, said Dan Edge,
associate dean of OSU’s Col-
lege of Agricultural Science.
The task force is also trou-
bled by the possibility that SB
198 would allow the Indepen-
dent Science Review Board
to be funded with grants and
donations, said Edge.
It’d be preferable for the
panel’s money to come from
the state general fund, to
avoid the perception that large
donors can steer the review
process, he said.
“We’re very concerned we
might end up in a ‘pay to play’
situation,” Edge said.
Oregon’s rival universities form
research pact on tall wooden buildings
By ERIC MORTENSON
Capital Press
Cross Oregon State Bea-
vers and University of Oregon
Ducks, pull in a Scotsman from
Canada and you get, well, tall
buildings made out of wood.
The forestry and engi-
neering colleges at OSU are
teaming with UO’s School of
Architecture and Allied Arts to
form the nation’s first research
program focused on structural
wood products and their use in
modest high-rise buildings.
Oregon State announced
the collaboration this week and
said its Center for Advanced
Wood Products Manufacturing
and Design has been renamed
the TallWood Design Insti-
tute. It’s intended to become a
national research, education,
teaching and outreach hub.
Iain Macdonald, a native
of Scotland who has headed a
similar project at the Universi-
ty of British Columbia the past
10 years, was hired as the insti-
tute’s acting director.
Over time, the initiative
could have significant eco-
nomic impact in rural Oregon,
much of which was hard hit
by the near shutdown of the
state’s timber industry over the
past 30 years. Finding new uses
for wood in construction could
lead to more mill investment
and employment, industry ob-
servers believe.
Nationally, tall wood build-
ing construction has attracted
considerable attention. Experts
say wood is a more environ-
mentally sustainable material
than steel and concrete, in part
because it sequesters carbon.
Macdonald, the new di-
rector, said the institute has a
two-prong objective. It could
revitalize the timber industry
by creating new opportunities
to use “mass timbers,” panels
and beams made through ad-
vanced engineering techniques.
That could create manufactur-
ing jobs in Oregon, he said.
Reducing greenhouse gas
emissions by using wood
in construction is another
benefit, he said.
Combining OSU’s engi-
neering and forestry colleges
with the UO’s experience in
sustainable architecture is a
great move, Macdonald said.
“You have people with
expertise all along the value
chain,” he said. “In my experi-
ence, that’s how problems get
solved.”
Oregon has something of a
jump start on wood buildings.
In September 2015, a 12-story
project in Portland’s upscale
Pearl District was awarded a
$3 million prize in a USDA
design competition intended
to encourage the use of timber
products in tall construction.
That same month, a South-
ern Oregon mill, D.R. John-
son, became the first American
company certified by the Amer-
ican Plywood Association and
American National Standards
Institute to make cross-lami-
nated timber panels, or CLT.
The certification means the
panels can be used in building
construction.
WE SPECIALIZE IN BULK BAGS!
BAGS:
• Seed Bags
• Fertilizer Bags
• Feed Bags
• Potato Bags
• Printed Bags
• Plain Bags
• Bulk Bags
• Totes
• Woven Polypropylene
• Bopp
• Polyethylene
• Pocket Bags
• Roll Stock & More!
HAY PRESS SUPPORT:
• Hay Sleeves
• Strap
• Totes
• Printed or Plain
• Stretch Film
(ALL GAUGES)
WAREHOUSE
PACKAGING:
• Stretch Film
• Pallet Sheets
• Pallet Covers
LOCATIONS:
Albany, Oregon (MAIN OFFICE)
Ellensburg, Washington
CONTACT INFORMATION:
Phone: 855-928-3856
Fax: 541-497-6262
info@westernpackaging.com
.......................................................
CUSTOMER SERVICE
IS OUR TOP PRIORITY!
w w w. w e s t e r n p a c k a g i n g. c o m
9-1/#5
9-2/#7