Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Capital press. (Salem, OR) 19??-current | View Entire Issue (April 13, 2018)
12 CapitalPress.com April 13, 2018 Farmers had no say in the importation of elk ELK from Page 1 They were let go not far from the farms and ranches east of Sedro-Woolley. The herd grew, as intended, and farmers started seeing elk in their fields, more each year. Elk, once rare, are common now. They calve in the val- ley, stay year-round and make farming and ranching there more difficult and expensive. The elk eat hay grown for livestock, bust fences, dig up potatoes and stunt trees by gnawing on the bark. Farmers worry about their livestock escaping through the broken fences or becoming infected with hoof rot, a disease that plagues elk. The farmers say they are frustrated, both by the bur- geoning elk population and the lack of cooperation from wildlife managers. Tall order Farmers had no say in the importation of elk that began 15 years ago. “They didn’t ask us. They just dumped them on our property,” said John Jonas- son, a hog and beef producer whose family has farmed in the valley since 1870. “We don’t hate the elk. We hate the numbers.” Elk are a widespread prob- lem in the Pacific Northwest, where they number nearly 300,000 and cause agricultur- al damage throughout the re- gion. Farmers on the Olympic Peninsula, in the Columbia Gorge, Eastern Oregon, West- ern Idaho and elsewhere have all recently reported increas- ing damage caused by elk. Washington has an esti- mated 50,000 and 60,000 elk in 10 herds. The North Cas- cades herd near Sedro-Wool- ley is the state’s smallest. The Fish and Wildlife De- partment, which co-manag- es the herd with nine Native American tribes, is working on a new herd plan. The tribes, who secured hunting rights by signing the 1855 Point Elliott Treaty, oppose submitting the plan to the Legislature for ap- proval, but state lawmakers made a gesture and put into a spending bill instructions to Fish and Wildlife to have a plan by the end of the summer to minimize the number of elk on private land and maximize the number of elk on public land. Amy Windrope, Fish and Wildlife’s acting deputy di- rector, said it won’t be easy. She agreed with farmers’ fundamental complaint. “We need to get way more effec- tive in getting the elk off the valley floor,” Windrope said. Beyond that, managing the elk gets more difficult, she said. A large-scale culling of Don Jenkins/Capital Press Skagit County rancher Randy Good. “We want them to just obey the law and get them off our farms,” he says. the herd would cause an up- roar from val- ley residents who enjoy the elk, and the state must re- John spect the treaty Jonasson rights of the tribes. “Finding a way forward is really tricky,” Windrope said. “I think it’s not happening fast enough for ag folks.” Upper Skagit tribe policy representative Scott Schuyler said the tribe doesn’t want to see farms harmed, but it also wants a healthy elk herd. “It’s always going to be our objective,” he said. “We realize it could be problematic for some, but we’re fortunate that we have the environment here to allow wildlife to re- main here. “We recognize there is a balancing act we have to achieve,” he said. “The reality is not everybody is going to be 100 percent happy.” Fish and Wildlife’s plan to move elk out of the valley floor will include hunting, hazing, fences, creating elk habitat in the hills and issuing permits to farmers to shoot damage-causing elk. Some farmers, though, are pessimistic. The plan doesn’t represent anything new, they say. The department already does those things. “We’re not seeing any measurable improvements,” Skagit County Farm Bureau President Bill Schmidt said. Skagit County Cattleman’s Association Vice President Randy Good said he’s losing hope the state will come up with something helpful. “Things aren’t getting any better,” Good said. “They’re going to get worse.” Plight of farmers The Ovenell family has ranched near the tiny town of Concrete, 24 miles east of Sedro-Wool- ley, since the 1940s. Over the years, they saw an occa- Cindy sional elk. Ovenell- Then, six Kleinhuizen years ago, about 50 showed up in the fall, said Cindy Ovenell-Kleinhuizen. Since then the ranch has been stuck with feeding elk in addition to feeding its beef cattle. The elk overgraze the pastures, leaving more weeds and less grass for cows, she said. Because of elk, the ranch spends more to buy hay, fer- tilizer and install fences. Elk tear the plastic wrapped around hay bales and spoil whatever they don’t eat. Hazing is time-consum- ing and futile, and permits to kill elk are a temporary fix, Ovenell-Kleinhuizen said. “They may leave for a few days, but they come back and we begin again,” she said. “It’s not solving any prob- lems.” Dairy farmer Randy Mow- er said that for decades he grew enough hay to feed his 120 milking cows. Last year, however, he had to spend about $18,000 on hay to make up for what the elk ate. He won’t ask for a permit from the state to shoot an elk. “You’re kind of accepting that as your payment for all the damage,” Mower said. “I’m not going allow them to think I’ve accepted their pay- ment.” Another dairy farmer, Der- ek Blanken, said about 100 elk moved onto a 40-acre field and ate all of the hay. “It’s getting worse. Last year was the most noticeable,” he said. “There’s not a whole lot you can do about it.” With milk prices low, it’s hard to afford to feed his cows, let alone the elk, he said. “I know I’m not the only dairyman Randy hurting, but Good this isn’t help- ing my cause.” Asked what should be done, Blanken suggested “a culling.” “Get rid of them,” he said. “They don’t belong here.” Expanding herd By the late 1990s, the herd was down to about 300 elk, the state estimated. About 125 lived on agricultural land along the Skagit River, while the rest lived at higher eleva- tions to the north. The Fish and Wildlife Department said it was receiving two to four complaints a year from farm- ers. In 2002, the department drew up a plan to expand the herd to 1,950 elk. The depart- ment calculated that was the minimum number needed to sustain the population. There had been 1,700 elk in the 1980s, before the herd began shrinking because of logging, forest roads and too much hunting, according to the de- partment. The department and tribes halted the hunting and im- ported the elk from Mount St. Helens. The plan’s executive sum- mary stated the department’s overall view: “While elk damage and use of agricultur- al lands is also an issue, it is recognized that private lands along the Skagit River are im- portant areas for elk and that habitat must be preserved and protected.” The plan discussed “herd augmentation” at length in an appendix. The department speculated that the imported elk would learn from the older elk and stay in the hills. If the elk did come down to the valley floor and cause damage, the department would have a “no-tolerance policy” and prioritize “lethal removal of offending ani- mals.” Other parts of the plan suggested the state would try to reduce, but not completely stop, damage to farms. In 2013, Fish and Wildlife signed an agreement with the tribes to co-manage the elk. The agreement calls for ex- hausting non-lethal means of controlling damage before us- ing lethal removal. The department does use lethal control. It issued 52 per- mits to shoot damage-causing elk in the herd between Aug. 1 and March 31. Schuyler, of the Upper Skagit tribe, said his tribe supports issuing the permits. The state also funds fenc- ing and compensates farmers for damage. Neither solves their problems, farmers say. Fences shift elk from you to your neighbor, they say. Also, elk damage fences. Jo- nasson said he had a fence put up 21 months ago and it’s been breached by elk 20 times. Compensation is another sore point. Fish and Wildlife reports paying out $67,412 since 2002 for damage caused by elk. No claims, however, have been paid during the past three years, even though Skagit County commissioners in a recent letter to the depart- ment complained that elk an- nually cause several hundred thousand dollars in damage to agriculture. Filing a claim has many steps. It includes submitting tax records, property records, insurance records and an ad- juster’s report. It means satis- fying the department that pre- ventive measures were good enough and that the public was allowed to hunt on your property. Two people filed claims last year, according to the department. One didn’t qualify and one didn’t com- plete the paperwork. “People have given up,” Jonasson said. “It’s not worth their time.” Windrope said the depart- ment doesn’t want the claims process to be a barrier to com- pensation. “We’re all for mak- ing it easy for farmers to get the help they need,” she said. Enough elk The county commission- ers’ letter to the Fish and Wildlife Department restat- ed complaints that elk are causing economic damage and threatening public safe- ty. The commissioners said that elk damage crops and pastures at about 30 farms a year. They said sheriff’s vehicles have collided with elk four times in the past six years. “The increasing number of elk on the valley floor are a threat to public safety and have negative economic im- pacts far beyond the minimal reimbursements available,” the commissioners stated. The commissioners pressed the department to immediately remove elk from private property by any means necessary. They cit- ed a state law that says the state’s mandate to manage wildlife must not be con- strued to infringe on private property rights. Good makes the same point. “We want them to just obey the law and get them off our farms,” he said. Windrope defends her de- partment’s efforts to do that. “We’re working pretty hard to keep elk off their land,” she said. “We do not want to grow the herd in the valley floor of the Skagit.” Her department’s goal is to have 1,700 to 2,000 elk in the North Cascades herd. It already may be that size. The department has only a rough idea because few elk are fit- ted with radio collars. The fewer the collars, the larger the margin of error in count- ing elk. A recent survey es- timated 1,593 elk, plus or minus 716. The department also esti- mates 300 to 500 elk outside the survey area. Whatever the total herd count, bands of elk in val- ley fields are common. “If you saw just one elk once in awhile, you’d say, ‘What a noble creature!’” said Mow- er, the dairy farmer. “Now they let your cattle out and you’re liable.” The county commission- ers also complained that elk interfere with gardens. Rural landowners aren’t eligible for compensation, only com- mercial farmers. Retired teacher Janis Sch- weitzer guards her yard with flags drenched in milk, eggs, cayenne pepper, cinnamon, Tabasco sauce and pepper spray. Schweitzer lost a lot of garden to elk last year, but she said she will try again. “Yeah, I’m going to have a garden this year. I just bought a cannister of pepper spray.” Jonasson said he followed the suggestion of a state wildlife manager and put tinfoil smeared with peanut butter on an electric fence. The elk were supposed to get a little shock and stay away. The tinfoil blew in the wind and short-circuited the fence. Employee spotted wolves chasing and attacking rancher’s cattle WOLVES from Page 1 — authorizing the lethal removal of two wolves in an attempt to change the wolf pack’s behavior. OR-50 is the breeding male of the pack, a wolf involved in repeat- ed kills in Wallowa County last year when he was a member of the Harl Butte Pack. According to George Rollins, Oregon Cattlemen’s Associa- tion wolf committee co-chaiman, rancher Chad Delcurto turned out 130 cow and calf pairs into a pri- vate pasture Wednesday, April 4. The cattle were held overnight in a corral so the mothers and calves could find each other in a safe en- closure. On Thursday, the cow/calf pairs were driven up from the corrals to higher ground. Rollins said the cattle were held to make sure they paired up again. There were no wolf sightings that afternoon, yet the next day an employee of Pine Valley Ranch was scouting for a hunting trip and saw wolves chas- ing and attacking Delcurto’s cattle. “He (ranch employee) ran to them, video taped them and then contacted everyone he could to get in touch with Chad,” Rollins said. Delcurto assembled a crew on horseback to check the cattle. The horseback riders rode into the mid- dle of wolves among the cattle and attempted to chase the predators away. While checking the herd the horseback crew found two dead calves approximately one mile apart from each other. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife staff in Bak- er County as well as Baker County Sheriff Travis Ash and Deputy Rob Adams performed an investigation. “A picture was taken of a cow standing over her dead calf with wolves 20 feet away,” Rollins said. Rollins said another crew was as- sembled April 7 to gather the entire herd and determine if there were any further losses. During the gather- ing the horseback riders discovered wolves attacking another calf. “Riders harassed the wolves (five wolves were visible at the site) and drove them over the ridge west of where the attack took place,” Rollins said. The calf had significant bites with visible open wounds on both rear legs. Rollins said it was unable to travel and was left behind with his mother who was also showing lame- ness. At the corrals, 130 cows were counted and 124 calves, including the pair left on the hillside. Four of those calves showed visible wounds on their rear legs and hindquarters. The calf left on the hillside was later euthanized and the carcass investigated. Again, wolves were seen in close prox- imity during the investigation. “So at this point Chad had three calves confirmed killed, four con- firmed injured and three missing in 48 hours,” Rollins said. “If you total that up, sold as 550 pound calves, that’s a $10,000 loss.” According to Michelle Dennehy of Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, OR-50 moved into the Pine Creek Wildlife Unit in Baker County last fall and joined up with a female wolf, OR-36. Rollins said there have been reg- ular sightings of wolves within 400 yards of the Pine Valley Ranch shop outside of Halfway where he recently retired as manager. Fish and Wildlife biologists have re- peatedly hazed wolves away from the ranch headquarters. “The ODFW guys have done a remarkable job hazing — they were concerned there would be depredations in the spring time,” Rollins said. “They ran wolves probably 20 miles with helicopters back into the forest to the Imnaha River again and that lasted about 36 hours.” In the next few days Rollins said eight more producers are get- ting set to turn out cattle in the low hills where Delcurto’s cattle are grazing. Lower commodity crop prices have spurred the drive toward consolidation MERGER from Page 1 integrated products, such as her- bicide-resistant crops, he said. Seed companies — which often incorporate genet- ic traits into regional seed products — will now have to align themselves with one of the “gang of four” agrochemical companies: Bayer-Monsanto, DowDu- pont, Syngenta and BASF, Carstensen said. If they attempt to reduce prices or otherwise under- mine the power of major trait developers, seed com- panies risk being punished in licensing deals, he said. “The minute they try to behave competitively, they get cut off,” Carstensen said. Competition could get a boost if seed companies were allowed to begin de- veloping generic versions of genetic traits before they go off-patent, he said. That way, the generic trait would be available as soon the pat- ent expired, instead of years later, he said. Another option would be to allow seed companies to “stack” traits in whatever combination they choose, instead of the “stacks” man- dated by the developers, Carstensen said. It’s possible the Depart- ment of Justice could re- quire such flexibility in the Bayer-Monsanto deal — the agreement clearing the merger isn’t yet public — but the agency isn’t likely to delve into such details, he said. “I’d love to be wrong,” Carstensen said. To a certain extent, the Department of Justice’s approval of the merger be- tween Dow and Dupont last year set the stage for the Bayer-Monsanto clearance, said Bob Young, retired chief economist for the American Farm Bureau Federation and president of the Agricultural Prospects consultancy firm. With its approval of the previous agrochemical com- bination, the government likely thought that Bay- er-Monsanto would serve as a formidable competitor, he said. Developing new genetic traits and pesticides is ex- pensive due to regulatory costs and litigation, so it makes sense for companies in these fields to grow in size, Young said. “You almost need a com- pany with deep pockets to work through all this stuff,” he said. Lower commodity crop prices have also spurred the drive toward consolida- tion and cost-cutting, since there’s “not as much money rattling around” in the agri- culture industry, Young said. “The sector is down. When that happens, mergers happen,” he said.
