November 10, 2017
CapitalPress.com
5
WDFW looks ahead to post-recovery wolf management
Too many to count
in northeast corner
By DON JENKINS
Capital Press
Washington wildlife of-
ficials are beginning to talk
about how to manage wolves
once the species recolonizes
the state.
It may take five more years,
but wolves will reproduce in
sufficient numbers through-
out Washington to meet the
state’s goals, Department of
Fish and Wildlife wolf policy
coordinator Donny Martorel-
lo said in an interview.
“The writing is on the wall.
This species will reach its re-
covery objectives,” he said.
“We need to have a dialogue
about what happens when we
reach that point, and we need
to start having that dialogue
now.”
Wolves are a state-protect-
ed species, a designation that
has less weight than federal
protection, but nevertheless
puts WDFW’s focus on re-
covery.
Taking wolves off the state
list could emphasize other is-
sues, such as limiting the pop-
ulation of predators.
The state’s action would
be separate and subordinate to
federal rules. Wolves are fed-
erally protected in the western
two-thirds of the state, where
they are rare.
Wolves are numerous
enough in northeast Wash-
ington that wildlife managers
can no longer count with con-
fidence how many roam in a
four-county region.
Martorello said WDFW is
focused now on documenting
packs and breeding pairs to
the west and south, a prereq-
uisite to moving to post-re-
covery management. State
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
A remote camera installed by the Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife in August photographs wolves in northeast Washing-
ton, possibly from the Beaver Creek pack. WDFW is beginning to
talk about how to manage wolves after the species has re-estab-
lished itself throughout the state.
and federal biologists recent-
ly captured and fitted with a
radio collar Western Wash-
ington’s first known wolf in
decades.
“We are seeing wolves
continue to expand geograph-
ically, as well as numerical-
ly,” Martorello said. “It’s a
sign to us to start planning.
I can’t forecast if it will be
a two-year process or a five-
year process or more, but I do
know it will take time.”
WDFW counted 115
wolves in Washington at the
end of 2016. If projections
hold true, the population will
increase by about 30 percent
annually, even though the de-
partment resorts to lethal con-
trol to stop chronic attacks on
livestock. WDFW killed three
wolves this summer and sev-
en in 2016.
Cattle Producers of Wash-
ington President Scott Niel-
sen said that he was encour-
aged that WDFW will start
talking about taking wolves
off the state-protected list.
Nielsen said northeast
Washington has become sat-
urated with wolves. Besides
attacking livestock, wolves
are reducing the population of
deer and elk, and threatening
public safety, he said.
“It got so much worse this
year than last year,” Nielsen
said. “It is important to get
de-listing, so they (wildlife
managers) can be a lot more
reasonable about what’s real-
ly happening out there.”.
Center for Biological Di-
versity wolf advocate Amaroq
Weiss said it was premature
to talk about limiting the wolf
population.
WDFW should reopen its
wolf plan, adopted in 2011,
and consider whether the
state’s goals will ensure the
species’ survival, she said.
“It’s not just a recovery
plan, it’s a conservation and
management plan,” she said.
“They need to look at all the
current science.”
Washington’s wolf plan
divides the state into three re-
gions. The state needs at least
15 breeding pairs, with each
region having at least four,
according to the plan.
Eastern Washington has
eight documented breeding
pairs, while the North Cas-
cades has two. The South
Cascades has zero. Never-
theless, WDFW projects the
goals will be met statewide by
2021 or 2022.
Onion growers benefit from research related to produce rule
By SEAN ELLIS
Capital Press
ONTARIO, Ore. — Re-
search by Oregon State Uni-
versity scientists relating to the
Food and Drug Administra-
tion’s new produce safety rule
is benefiting onion growers.
And onion growers have
themselves to thank for that,
industry leaders say, because
they’re the ones who funded
a good portion of the research
through their checkoff dollars.
“That has been money well
spent, no doubt about it, and I
think everybody agrees with
that,” said Kay Riley, mar-
keting order chairman for the
Idaho-Eastern Oregon Onion
Committee. “It wasn’t a hard
sell to the (IEOOC) research
committee to fund those stud-
ies.”
Researchers at OSU’s Mal-
heur County experiment sta-
tion conducted several trials
over the past four years that
collectively showed onions
are not at risk of being con-
taminated by irrigation water
containing large amounts of
bacteria.
Those studies helped FDA
An onion field trial at Oregon State University’s agricultural research station near Ontario.
change its mind on some of the
agricultural water standards
originally included in the pro-
duce rule in a way that benefits
bulb onion growers.
Beyond that, the research
could also help growers who
face industry-required Good
Agricultural Practices audits,
said OSU Extension cropping
systems agent Stuart Reitz.
Many of the 300 onion
growers in the Idaho-Oregon
onion growing region face
GAP audits, and some of them
face several other types of au-
dits as well, he said. Those au-
dits require them to show they
are growing onions in a safe
and sanitary manner.
OSU researchers are start-
ing to get the produce rule-re-
lated studies published in
peer-reviewed scientific jour-
nals — one has already been
published and another has
been submitted for review.
That will allow onion growers
to incorporate the findings of
that research into their GAP
audits, Reitz said.
Sean Ellis/Capital Press
“We’re trying to finish get-
ting some of the studies we’ve
done published so we have
scientifically valid studies that
growers can incorporate into
the farm safety plans that GAP
audits require,” he said.
Clint Shock, director of
the OSU experiment station in
Malheur County, said the stud-
ies included loading irrigation
water with large amounts of
bacteria and then tracking E.
coli contamination in the field
and on onions.
Despite loading the water
with bacteria, no traces of E.
coli were ever found in an on-
ion, Shock said.
Another study showed that
using plastic bins instead of
the wooden ones used for de-
cades resulted in no difference
in detectable levels of E. coli.
“There is no difference be-
tween plastic and wooden bins
in terms of food safety,” Reitz
said.
That research helped con-
vince FDA to drop a produce
rule provision that could have
required growers to switch to
plastic bins.
There are about 1 million
wooden onion bins in the re-
gion, and replacing them with
plastic bins would have been
expensive, said Riley, who is
also manager of Snake River
Produce.
Plastic bins cost three
times as much as wooden bins
and hold two-thirds as much
onions, he said.
California imposes pesticide
restrictions near schools
By TIM HEARDEN
Capital Press
SACRAMENTO — The
state will proceed with stricter
controls on the use of pesticides
near schools and child-care
centers despite push-back from
growers’ advocates.
Beginning Jan. 1, the Cali-
fornia Department of Pesticide
Regulation’s new rule will pro-
hibit many applications within
a quarter-mile of public schools
and licensed day care facilities
from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday
through Friday, the state an-
nounced on Nov. 7.
This includes all applica-
tions by aircraft, sprinklers and
air-blast sprayers and all fu-
migant applications as well as
most dust and powder applica-
tions such as sulfur, according
to a state news release.
The rule will also require
nearby growers to provide
annual notifications to area
schools and county agricultur-
al commissioners of the pesti-
cides they expect to use in the
upcoming year.
“As farmers protect their
crop with pesticides, we have
to make sure those children are
safe and we have assurances
that they’re safe,” DPR director
Brian Leahy said in prepared
remarks streamed online. He
said the rule adds “an addition-
al layer” to existing restrictions
on pesticides near schools.
The rule comes after two
rounds of public comments and
complaints from farm groups
such as California Citrus Mu-
tual, which has asserted the
requirements are unnecessary.
CCM was still reviewing the
final regulation on Nov. 7,
spokeswoman Alyssa Houtby
said. The state had original-
ly proposed a mandate that
growers notify nearby schools
and their county agricultur-
al commissioner at least 48
hours before they spray. But
the mandate was removed after
Citrus Mutual and other groups
California DPR
Jing Tao, a scientist for the Cali-
fornia Department of Pesticide
Regulation, checks pesticide
residue levels at an air moni-
toring station in Salinas, Calif.
The agency has imposed a
regulation restricting pesticide
use near schools and child care
centers on weekdays.
complained last fall. The state
also clarified that “school site”
doesn’t include school buses
and other vehicles.
Laura Brown, CCM’s direc-
tor of government affairs, said
earlier this year the group still
believes the rule isn’t based on
sound science and that it plac-
es an undue burden on schools
to notify parents when there’s
even a potential that pesticides
could be used in the area.
The rule will impact about
4,100 public elementary and
high schools and licensed day
care facilities and involve about
2,500 growers in California,
state officials said.
State officials argue the rule
will set a consistent, statewide
standard to augment local rules
adopted by many counties re-
lated to pesticide applications
near schools and day care cen-
ters. In addition to tightening
restrictions, the regulation is
designed to encourage greater
communication between grow-
ers and schools or early-child-
hood facilities, Leahy said.
The communication could help
schools better respond to po-
tential drift incidents and inqui-
ries from parents, officials said.
45-3/101