Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Capital press. (Salem, OR) 19??-current | View Entire Issue (Nov. 16, 2018)
November 16, 2018 CapitalPress.com 11 Washington’s largest cattle rancher faces big trouble with wolves RANCH from Page 1 The anti-ranching move- ment preceded the reintro- duction of gray wolves into the West. Earth First coined the battle cry, “Cattle Free by ‘93.” 1993 was two years be- fore the U.S. Fish and Wild- life Service trapped wolves in Canada and released them in Yellowstone National Park and Idaho. “The wolf thing is more ef- fective than anything they’ve thrown at us,” McIrvin said. “Every year could not have gone better for people who want to get cattle and sheep out of the back country.” Still bitter four years later Fish and Wildlife draws shapes on a map to indicate a wolfpack’s territory. The northeast corner of Washing- ton has filled up with overlap- ping shapes. For many years, ranchers and community lead- ers, particularly in Ferry and Stevens counties, have said that wolves are a problem. For the most part, the rest of the state has shrugged. From a distance, ranchers have an easy way out. Fish and Wildlife has a program to compensate ranches for losses that can be attributed to wolves. To get money, ranch- ers must document losses and comply with requirements re- lated to managing cattle. The department paid out $3,700 in 2017, according to its annual report. The Diamond M won’t apply. The compensation program dims opposition to a growing wolf population. But neither ranchers nor the state can long afford to raise livestock to be destroyed by wolves, McIrvin said. “There’s no way we can run cattle by taking their mon- ey.” Sheep rancher Dave Dashiell feels the ongoing fi- nancial sting of wolves when he gets a check for wool. He once grazed as many as 1,200 ewes in northeast Washington. In 2014, Fish and Wildlife confirmed wolves killed 28 of his sheep. It’s widely accepted that only a fraction of wolf attacks on livestock are confirmed. Dashiell figured he actual- ly lost about 300 sheep to wolves. Fish and Wildlife shot one wolf and left the rest of the pack in place. The next month, state wildlife manag- ers held a public meeting in a Seattle suburb and heard complaints that they shouldn’t have killed the one wolf. Meanwhile, across the state, Dashiell had withdrawn his sheep from the private timberland where the wolves were attacking the flock. He hasn’t come back. He has about 400 ewes now. The flock is small enough to keep close to his home. He said that a recent pay- ment for wool was for about $17,000. If he had as many sheep as he once did, the check would have been for about $50,000, he said. “It ends up being a lot more than a few dead sheep,” he said. “I’m still bitter, or whatever you want to call it. I’m mad.” Dashiell said he can’t take Don Jenkins/Capital Press The Diamond M herds cattle on the ranch’s winter range in Benton County, Wash. The ranch is struggling with wolves on its summer range in northeast Washington. his sheep back to wolf terri- tory because non-lethal mea- sures do not work for long. Maybe, he added, a dozen dogs might be effective if they were “the biggest, meanest, SOBs you could find.” Maybe not. Wolves have mauled two of his dogs. Stand up to be counted Cattle Producers of Wash- ington President Scott Niel- sen, a Stevens County ranch- er, said he does not think the Diamond M will be driven out of business. “They are good and efficient ranchers, and they can make it where others can’t,” he said. But if the largest cattle ranch can’t run in some places because of wolves, compe- tition for remaining pastures will increase, Nielsen said. “I think it’ll squeeze out other people.” The Diamond M can af- ford to feed a few thousand head because it grazes cattle in the north in the summer and trucks them away from the snow to graze in southeast Washington in the winter. McIrvin said he would prefer if he and his family, in- cluding his partners, son Bill and grandson Justin Hedrick, didn’t have to split the year between two homes, but the economics of larger cattle op- erations require it. The Diamond M is reput- ed — by others, not McIr- vin — to be the largest cattle ranch in Washington. It isn’t the only one losing livestock to wolves, but it’s apparently suffering the most losses and is certainly the most vilified by some wolf advocates. Nielsen said he believes some of the antipathy stems from Diamond M’s resilience, a sign that ousting cattle in fa- vor of wolves won’t be easy. “Any other rancher would be out of business and have moved on,” Nielsen said. “They are a tough bunch, and if they can’t make it, there isn’t any outfit that can make it in this area.” Fish and Wildlife has le- thally removed wolves sever- al times because packs were attacking Diamond M cattle, primarily in the Colville Na- tional Forest but also recent- ly on private land. Fish and Wildlife says the ranch takes steps to prevent conflicts with wolves and that lethal remov- al is a last resort. Still, Dia- mond M figures prominently in complaints that Fish and Wildlife shoots wolves too readily to appease ranchers. McIrvin has not shied from making his case in pub- lic. Fish and Wildlife shields the identities of ranchers who lose livestock, including the Diamond M. Most ranchers lay low, but not McIrvin. “The media needs somebody to talk about the other side,” he said. Anonymity, remaining faceless, handicaps ranchers in the court of public opinion, McIrvin said. “My feeling is you better stand up and be counted,” he said. “The bureaucracy will roll over you if you don’t make a stand.” Court battle ahead Some environmental groups this summer opposed culling the Old Profanity pack in the Colville National Forest on the grounds that the depart- ment shot seven wolves on the same allotment in 2016. The environmentalists com- plained there must be some- thing wrong if wolves had to be shot again. The Diamond M has used the allotment since 1949. McIrvin’s grandfather Harry, father Clive and uncle Bob first hauled cattle there in a cloth-topped Army truck. The problem, McIrvin said, is that “what worked for us for 70 years, no longer works.” The attention paid to the al- lotment created the perception that it was particularly prone to conflicts between cattle and wolves, McIrvin said. Wolves are attacking cattle in many places and culling packs faces stiff opposition no matter the rancher losing livestock. The Center for Biological Diversity and Cascadia Wild- lands went to Thurston Coun- ty Superior Court this year to stop Fish and Wildlife from shooting wolves in the Togo pack, as well as the Old Pro- fanity pack. Fish and Wildlife attorney Michael Grossmann vigorously defended the cull- ings, arguing they would not harm overall recovery and were necessary to preserve social tolerance of wolves. In both cases, Judge Carol Mur- phy declined to intervene and block the operations. A larger claim is unre- solved: Whether Fish and Wildlife’s lethal-removal protocol is illegal because it didn’t go through a formal environmental review. A hear- ing before Murphy may take place early next year. The environmental groups base their legal arguments on the State Environmental Pol- icy Act and Administrative Procedure Act. Their case is spiced with declarations from Center for Biological Diver- sity members who question why Fish and Wildlife should be so protective of ranchers. “I do not understand that. It is not a large part of our cul- ture or economy,” a Spokane man declared, who also said he believed wolves are more intelligent than people and that he has a deep spiritual connection to them. “Oh my god, it would affect my whole life if we lost wolves again. It would be devastating,” he declared. If the ruling goes against Fish and Wildlife, the depart- ment may not have a lethal-re- moval protocol in place when the summer grazing season begins. Some environmen- tal groups say that shooting wolves hasn’t proven effec- tive in stopping depredation on livestock anyway, while non-lethal measures are effec- tive. Researchers have been studying how well lights, flap- ping ribbons, cleaning up cat- tle carcasses and having more people around herds work. The question of whether kill- ing wolves actually increases attacks on livestock may be a central feature of the hearing in front of Judge Murphy. Nielsen, president of a group that represents cow- calf producers, dismisses with a barnyard expletive the idea that lethal removal spurs more attacks on livestock. McIrvin said that losses to wolves have been minimal in one area since Fish and Wildlife removed seven wolves in the Wedge pack in 2012. “That Wedge deal has been a suc- cess story,” he said. McIrvin said that since then Fish and Wildlife has been too concerned about the politics and stalled in remov- ing wolves.“You know, as bad as the Washington state wolf plan was, if the department was honest enough to follow it, we’d be OK,” he said. Fish and Wildlife will con- sider killing wolves after three depredations on livestock in 30 days or four in 10 months. It’s not a hard line. “There is a uniqueness to every situa- tion,” Fish and Wildlife wolf policy coordinator Donny Martorello said. “It’s not just a check-the-box process.” Martorello said the depart- ment considers all Washing- ton residents to have a stake in wolf recovery, not just those living near wolves. “We want to be government by the people for the people — trans- parent, inclusive, so we want to engage a diversity of com- munities,” he said. Ranchers say that prevent- ing wolf attacks is in their in- terest. The alternative is get- ting tangled up in public fury. A rancher losing cattle to the Togo pack declared in a court filing that he wasn’t fond of wolves, but accepted the fact they were there. “We are trying to do ev- erything we can do to prevent depredations, and to do so by the book. At all times, we wanted to avoid any conflicts or controversies that may come with a lethal-removal action,” the rancher declared. Initially another judge is- sued a temporary restraining order prohibiting Fish and Wildlife from shooting a wolf in the Togo pack. Murphy lift- ed the order, but not before the rancher encountered a wolf. He said he wounded it in self-defense. The department later shot and killed the wolf. The wolf is ranked Washington’s policy has been to welcome wolves, on the condition that Fish and Wildlife minimize livestock losses. The department, how- ever, must minimize losses without “negatively impact- ing” recovery, according to the state’s 2011 wolf plan. “I think the wolf plan has turned out 100 percent suc- cessful for the environmental people, and 100 percent un- successful for the cattle indus- try,” McIrvin said. A key feature of the wolf plan is that wolves will re- main a state-protected species until there are at least four breeding pairs in each of three zones: Eastern Washington, the North Cascades and the South Cascades. To qualify as a breeding pair, a wolfpack must have two pups survive to the end of the year. The plan was made when Washington counted 18 wolves. In the most-recent count, the state had at least 122 wolves. The 577 percent increase in the wolf popula- tion has not yet translated into much progress in reaching re- covery. At the end of 2017, Eastern Washington had 13 breeding pairs and the North Cascades had one. The South Cascades does not have a known wolf, let alone a breeding pair. To hasten the day wolves can be taken off the state-pro- tected list, lawmakers this year directed Fish and Wild- life to study trapping and moving wolves to the Cas- cades or other suitable places. The bill passed with the sup- port of some Eastern Wash- ington legislators and west- side lawmakers who represent urban districts that will never have wolves. Although translocation would be intended to relieve pressure on northeast Wash- ington ranchers, McIrvin said he doesn’t supporting sending wolves west. That will hurt Western Washington ranchers and not change the public’s opinion of wolves, he said. “A majority of voters would still never see them.” Of course, voters have seen images of wolves. French researchers published a pa- per this year ranking the 20 most charismatic animals in Western societies. The rank- ings were based on surveys of school children and “internet users,” as well as zoo home- pages and Disney movie post- ers. The wolf ranked ninth, right behind the polar bear and just ahead of the gorilla. McIrvin goes against the grain, calling the wolf “mangy.” After years though of being plain-spoken, he con- fesses that he doesn’t know what else he can say. “We’ve about exhausted our thoughts,” he said. “I use to think the truth would ulti- mately prevail, but it doesn’t seem to matter.” He said this sitting in his pickup at the Diamond M’s winter headquarters near the Columbia River in Ben- ton County. His college-age grandson, George Wishon, was crammed in the backseat. George’s father, Ted Wishon, is a rancher. George Wishon said that if the Diamond M goes out, oth- er ranches would be in danger too. To environmentalists, he said. the Diamond M’s demise would be a “humongous tro- phy.” USDA predicted a record hazelnut crop in 2018 HAZEL from Page 1 With the growth in acre- age, George said there was a rush to expand alongside the orchards. Nearly all U.S. commercial hazelnuts are grown in Oregon, and George Packing Company is the in- dustry’s largest processor and marketer. But the volume simply has not arrived yet, George said, creating an overcapacity on production lines. “You have this massive excess capacity and no huge volume to run,” he said. “We were excited about a record crop. We’re not the only ones who made significant invest- ments, but it just never mate- rialized.” Patrick Gabrish, vice pres- ident of sales and marketing for Hazelnut Growers of Or- egon, a member-owned co-op representing 150 local ha- zelnut farmers, said he is not overly concerned about lower yields. He is quick to point out that 33,000 acres of or- chards still have not reached nut-bearing age. When they do, he said the spike in vol- ume may help to stabilize prices and develop new mar- kets. “There’s going to be plen- ty of crop to work with over the next few years,” Gabrish said. Both Gabrish and George raved about this year’s crop quality, aided by a dry harvest season that minimized mud and mold. Months of drought, however, also emphasized the need for growers to adopt irri- gation and nutrient programs to maximize yields through difficult summers. Nik Wiman, orchard spe- cialist for Oregon State Uni- versity, said growers with dry- land hazelnut orchards should consider adding drip irriga- tion if they can. Meanwhile, the university continues to re- search nutrient requirements for new trees, as well as how best to defend against emerg- ing pests and diseases, such as bacterial blight and the Pacif- ic flatheaded borer. “Everything we have is based on the old (nut) culti- vars,” Wiman said. “We’ve been doing everything we can to update the nutrient require- ments for the new trees.” This year was already challenging for the hazelnut industry as a perfect storm of global factors combined to drive down prices for grow- ers. First, China slapped a 15 percent and 25 percent retal- iatory tariffs on the product from the U.S. in response to the Trump administration’s escalating trade war. Then, the Turkish lira plummeted in value, allowing the country to flood the market with cheap hazelnuts. For the first time, grow- ers accepted a three-tier price system at 62 cents per pound for in-shell hazelnut varieties, and between 81 and 91 cents per pound for “shell-out” va- rieties, which command more value for larger kernels. That is lower than last year’s price of 96.5 cents per pound for all hazelnuts, and $1.18 per pound in 2016. Terry Ross, executive di- rector of the Hazelnut Grow- ers Bargaining Association, said they system was meant to encourage growers to plant more shell-out varieties to tap into newer and potentially more lucrative markets. “There is a lot of poten- tial,” Ross said. “The future is bright.” Courtesy National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration This map from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin- stration shows the worldwide effects of El Nino. Federal Climate Prediction Center says odds have improved recently EL Nino from Page 1 Even if the El Nino strengthens into a moder- ate one, it’s unlikely to lead to a winter as warm as the one four years ago, Bond said. The ocean off the West Coast is warmer than usual, but not as heated as it was then, he said. “I don’t think it’s going to be a major player, but likely will contribute to a little bit of the warmth,” Bond said. NOAA predicted last month that Oregon, Idaho, California and Washington will have above-average winter temperatures and normal amounts of precipi- tation. NOAA was to update its winter outlook Nov. 15.
