8
CapitalPress.com
September 22, 2017
Washington
Cattleman calls for local
management of wolves
By MATTHEW WEAVER
Capital Press
A northeastern Washington
cattleman says he has turned
to the local sheriff for help in
dealing with wolves.
Justin Hedrick, co-owner
of the Diamond M Ranch in
Laurier, Wash., said he first
contacts Stevens County Sher-
iff Kendle Allen in the event of
a wolf attack on his cattle. He
believes the local law enforce-
ment agency is better equipped
than state wildlife managers to
deal with problem wolfpacks.
The state process for man-
aging livestock depredation
has not improved in the last
seven to eight years, Hedrick
said.
“It’s no different than it
ever has been,” Hedrick said.
“Every year, the (Washington
Department of Fish and Wild-
life) says, ‘Man, we learned
from our mistakes this year,
next year we’re going to be
faster. We’re going to do it bet-
ter next year.’”
Under the state wolf man-
agement plan, the department
is responsible for managing
wolves in northeastern Wash-
ington.
Allen, the sheriff, said a
representative of WDFW and
a deputy or undersheriff go
Matthew Weaver/Capital Press File
Rancher Justin Hedrick says local sheriffs are more responsive to
area producers in the event of a wolf attack on livestock.
out to investigate kills when
they are reported. The sher-
iff’s office also dispatches for
WDFW on depredations and
dangerous animals.
Allen said the sheriff’s
determination and the state’s
usually match.
In previous years, the
WDFW agent on the scene
wasn’t allowed to make a deci-
sion. The results of the investi-
gation had to be sent to a panel
to determine whether it was a
wolf kill. In recent years, the
state representative has been
given more “latitude” to deter-
mine whether a kill was likely
a wolf, he said.
Ferry County Sheriff Ray
Maycumber said he often
works with Hedrick. He has
commissioned a part-time
special deputy to monitor and
manage wildlife threats, pri-
marily for smaller-scale ranch-
ers with 50 to 300 cows.
“One cow to somebody
who’s got 50 means a lot more
than one cow to someone
who’s got a few thousand,”
he said. “We’re trying to push
(the deputy) that way because
those folks have the most to
lose.”
Maycumber said he would
like to explore the possibility
of several counties funding the
deputy position full-time to
cover a wider area.
Maycumber sends a staff
member to the site of every
kill possible, and requests cop-
ies of reports and photographs
when he can’t.
Hedrick estimates his ranch
lost at least 10 cattle to wolves
this year, five of which were
confirmed by the state as dep-
redations and five that were
not confirmed.
“In Wyoming, those guys
say you only find one out of
seven, and that’s in more open
country,” he said. “We could
have up to 70 head right now
that we haven’t found. We’re
not 100 percent sure, but we
found 10, anyway.”
The cost of the cattle losses
alone is $20,000, Hedrick said.
Additional costs, including ex-
tra management and time, fuel,
weight loss, reduced pregnan-
cy rates and pregnant cows
losing calves from the stress
of being chased and attacked
by wolves, would be another
$20,000, he said.
Hedrick said he knows
personally one rancher who
has gone out of business. He’s
heard of others who have also
gone out of business, he said,
and more are “on the brink.”
The Diamond M Ranch has
refused payment from the state
for wolf depredations.
The Stevens County orga-
nization wants quick removal
of wolves that prey on domes-
tic livestock.
Maycumber said public
faith in the WDFW appears to
be declining. He believes an
element of local control, with
the ability to tailor a county’s
response, would bolster sup-
port for the process.
“They’re not really peo-
ple the public feel they can
hold accountable,” May-
cumber said. “If I’ve got
a special deputy and I do
something wrong, the peo-
ple of Ferry County can tell
me what I need to do and if I
don’t do it, they can remove
me.”
Matthew Weaver/Capital Press
A Washington State Department of Ecology communications man-
ager accepts a copy of the press release from Protect Mill Canyon
Watershed committee members Morton Alexander and Chrys
Ostrander Sept. 6 outside Ecology’s office in Spokane.
Group starts letter campaign to
stop use of biosolids on ag land
By MATTHEW WEAVER
Capital Press
SPOKANE — A Washing-
ton citizen committee is ask-
ing the state to stop the use of
biosolids on agricultural lands
until existing science is thor-
oughly reviewed.
In a Sept. 6 press confer-
ence outside the state De-
partment of Ecology office
in Spokane, the Protect Mill
Canyon Watershed group
announced a grassroots let-
ter-writing campaign in hopes
of generating “hundreds of
email messages” to Gov. Jay
Inslee and Ecology director
Maia Bellon.
The group requested a
moratorium on any further
permit approvals for the ap-
plication of biosolids — treat-
ed solid waste from waste
water treatment plants — on
agricultural lands until a re-
view is completed and the
findings incorporated into re-
worked regulations.
The committee formed to
protest a permit filed by Fire
Mountain Farms, an Onalas-
ka, Wash., company, to apply
biosolids to several sites, in-
cluding Rosman Farms near
Davenport. The committee
includes members of Tolstoy
Farms, which grows organic
produce.
The committee is asking
that the permit be denied.
The committee claims it’s
impossible to know what all
would be in the biosolids ap-
plied to the soil.
Ecology says research in-
dicates that biosolids do not
pose a threat to human health
or the environment when
applied according to permit
requirements. A department
hydrogeologist determined
the proposal poses no threat
to surface or groundwater.
Fourteen people attended
the press conference in sup-
port of the committee.
Committee member Chrys
Ostrander said there’s no
deadline for emails to Inslee
or Bellon.
Asked how many letters he
expects the campaign to gen-
erate, he cited the example
of Azure Farms in Oregon’s
Sherman County. Sherman
County threatened to spray
weeds on the organic farm if
they weren’t brought under
control.
Conventional weed kill-
ers would have cost the farm
its organic certification. The
farm put out word on social
media and the county office
received an estimated 59,000
emails.
“There’s the upper limit,”
Ostrander said.
Azure Farms and Sherman
County have agreed to a weed
control plan.
Ostrander said he believes
the campaign has a “good
chance of success.”
Ecology says a final deci-
sion on Fire Mountain Farms’
permit on the site near Dav-
enport and a response to the
committee’s concerns will
be released at the same time,
within the next month.
The company’s permit
for statewide application has
been approved.
Beef Counts feeds record number of families
By MATTHEW WEAVER
Capital Press
SPOKANE — Washington
cattle ranchers recently dis-
tributed beef to a record num-
ber of families in need.
More than 325 families
received a chuck roast or 2
pounds of hamburger during a
Second Harvest mobile mar-
ket Sept. 7 in Spokane.
Usually 200 to 250 fam-
ilies are expected, said
KayDee Gilkey, director of
industry image for the Wash-
ington Beef Commission.
She noted the high turnout
was despite hot and smoky
weather.
Washington beef indus-
try representatives present-
ed Second Harvest with a
$50,000 check, bringing the
total raised for Beef Counts
to $710,000. The program has
been running for seven years
and last year handed out its
1 millionth serving of beef.
Washington Beef Commission
Washington beef industry representatives present Second Harvest
with a $50,000 check for Beef Counts on Sept. 7 at a mobile mar-
ket event in Spokane.
Beef Counts aims to provide
local food banks with a year-
round supply of beef.
The funding goes to help
Second Harvest purchase beef
for families in need.
“Ranchers give things lo-
cally in their community, and
it’s just something they do be-
cause they’re part of that com-
munity,” Gilkey said.
Beef Counts won’t be end-
ing any time soon, Gilkey said.
“We’ll continue doing it
as long as there’s people in
need,” she said.
The event ended the Beef
Counts summer program with
St. Helens Premium Angus
Beef and Rosauers and Super
1 Foods grocery stores. Agri
Beef Co. processes and ships
donated beef from its Toppe-
nish plant.
Court ponders scope of piece-rate work
By DON JENKINS
Capital Press
38-1/100
OLYMPIA — Hearing a
case that will decide whether
Washington farmers can con-
tinue to pay straight piece-rate
wages, state Supreme Court
justices considered Sept. 14
which tasks are necessary to
pick fruit.
A lawyer for farmwork-
ers suing the Dovex Fruit Co.
of Wenatchee said piece-rate
workers needn’t be compen-
sated separately for climbing
ladders and emptying bins, but
they should be paid a flat wage
for such tasks as traveling
between fields and attending
meetings.
Dovex’s attorney, Clay
Gatens, said after the hearing
that such a system could leave
growers unclear about what
qualifies as piece-rate work
and how to pay workers.
“I don’t know that they
would know,” he said. “From
our perspective, it would be
new law.”
The case, a follow-up to a
2015 ruling that mandated sep-
arate pay for rest breaks, could
reshape production-based pay
structures. The agriculture in-
dustry argues that piece-rate
wages reward top performers,
but farmworker advocates say
they leave workers unpaid for
some of their labor.
The Supreme Court ruled
unanimously two years ago
that rest breaks were import-
ant for worker health and that
piece-rate pickers shouldn’t
be penalized for taking them.
Some justices, however,
seemed reluctant to view that
decision as a precedent to the
Dovex case. Some suggested
that the Dovex case presented
a more complicated question
and pressed Gatens and the
farmworkers’ attorney, Marc
Cote, to differentiate piece-
rate work from “outside of
piece-rate picking work.”
“What’s the work that’s
included in picking?” Justice
Mary Yu asked.
Gatens and Cote offered
different definitions.
Gatens said piece-rate work
included anything necessary to
produce the “piece,” including
mandatory safety training and
traveling to fields.
Cote, who also argued the
rest break case in front of the
Supreme Court, said piece-
rate work should be defined
as tasks that reward efficient
workers, such as moving lad-
ders and the actual picking.
At other times, such
as training and traveling,
“they’re precluded from do-
ing their piece work, so during
this time, they’re not really
piece-rate workers,” he said.