10
CapitalPress.com
Friday, June 3, 2022
Clark: The man of Hay Creek Ranch
Land and water
Continued from Page 1
‘Bonanza,’ ‘The High Chapar-
ral,’ those old Western shows,” said
Anderson. “They end up with extra
cash to invest and think, ‘Farming,
that’d be fun.’ But 99% of them,
when they figure out how much work
there is, it isn’t long before they’re
out of there. Gordon’s not that way.
He took the challenge head-on.”
The man of
Hay Creek Ranch
It would be hard to overstate how
rugged Hay Creek Ranch is.
About 12 miles east of Madras,
a gravel road cut into the sides of
hills climbs up then dips into a valley
where the ranch headquarters lies.
In the highlands, hemmed in by
snowcapped blue mountains, cattle
forage among rabbit brush, junipers,
sagebrush and craggy rocks resem-
bling castle ruins.
Below, in the valleys, cattle graze
and sunbathe in meadows scumbled
with purple lupine.
Though Clark ambles slowly at
89, he drives fast. His employees
often see him zipping up and down
hills in his ATV across terrain so
inhospitable it deters poachers and
trespassers.
This land has played a prominent
role in Central Oregon’s history.
In 1873, according to the Oregon
Encyclopedia, David Baldwin estab-
lished the ranch as Baldwin Sheep
and Land Co.
Oregon Historical Society lists the
ranch as one of the earliest locations
where alfalfa was grown in the state.
After Baldwin, the property
passed through many hands.
In the early 1900s, scores of
homesteaders lived on the prop-
erty on 320-acre parcels, and until
1912, the Dalles-Prineville freight
and stagecoach lines ran through the
ranch. The property had a post office,
general store and school. Today, skel-
etal wooden frames of homesteaders’
cabins are scattered on the landscape.
Land of wool
Sheepherders once raised 50,000
sheep here each year in an era with
unrestricted use of nearby forest
lands in the Blue Mountains and
Ochocos for summer grazing.
For decades, Clark raised sheep
here, too, managing about 4,100 head
of fine-wooled Rambouillets annu-
ally until, in 2011, wild horses over-
took his Forest Service allotments,
leaving him scant summer forage.
For two years, Clark said he went
to public meetings, asking the For-
est Service to control the wild horse
population. Finally, he gave up, sell-
ing his flock to focus on cattle.
“I’m sad the sheep didn’t work
out,” said Clark. “It was a fascinating
experience.”
Bits of the sheep operation
remain: Clark keeps several Great
White Pyrenees and Border Collies,
which once followed the flock. And
by his fireplace stand two stuffed
cougars that once threatened Clark’s
sheep.
On the fireplace’s mantlepiece
Oregon Historical Society
Hay Creek Ranch team in front of a general store at Baldwin Sheep and Land Co.
stand several trophies. The one Clark
says he’s most proud of is a plaque
from Jefferson County Livestock
Association naming him 2010 Live-
stockman of the Year. Beside that are
surfing awards, glimpses of a former
life.
The first life
Born near Los Angeles in 1933,
Gordon “Grubby” Clark grew up by
the ocean, where he fell in love with
surfing.
“When I was young, all I wanted
to do was surf,” he said.
In the 1940s and 1950s, he surfed
on heavy redwood boards.
As a young man, Clark worked
for legendary surfboard designer
Tom Blake, who invented the surf-
board fin, and Hobie Alter, often
called “the Henry Ford of the surf-
board industry.”
After studying engineering at
Pomona College, Clark returned to
work with Alter, this time on a spe-
cial project: experimenting with
foam blanks, blocks of foam from
which surfboards could be made.
The first lightweight foam-core surf-
board hit the market in 1958.
One year later, the surfing-themed
movie “Gidget” popularized surfing.
Demand spiked.
Clark opened his own surf-
board blank factory, Clark Foam, in
1961. According to Surfer magazine
archives, the company at one time
supplied 90% of the blanks that went
into American-made surfboards and
60% of blanks worldwide.
The second life begins
At the crest of his success, Clark
looked for investment opportunities.
He recalls thinking that farmland,
decreasing in supply, would one day
prove valuable.
His chance came in 1993, when
Hay Creek Ranch went up for sale. A
victim of the savings and loan crisis,
the property came at a bargain.
Clark hadn’t intended to be a
farmer, but he recalls that when he
started building fences, drilling wells
and fixing things, he quickly realized
he enjoyed the work and treasured
the land.
“It was fun,” he said. “I love
building things.”
So, in 1994, he tried his hand at
ranching with Rambouillet sheep he
Sierra Dawn McClain/Capital Press
Hay Creek Ranch, one of Ore-
gon’s oldest and largest ranch
holdings, was established in
1873.
bought from Cunningham Sheep Co.
Around 1998, he added cattle.
Then Clark’s life took a U-turn.
In 2005, the surf industry was
shocked when Clark announced the
immediate closure of Clark Foam,
which surf experts estimate had been
worth $40 million.
Clark’s main reason for ending
the business was that California’s
environmental and workplace reg-
ulations had changed through the
decades, in step with changing scien-
tific knowledge.
A major chemical in Clark
Foam’s blanks was toluene diisocya-
nate, or TDI. When modern research
brought to light that TDI was toxic,
public records show that Clark began
to face litigation, regulations and
citations from OSHA, the state EPA
and individuals.
In response, Clark closed his fac-
tory. He started farming full-time in
2008.
Breeding better cattle
Clark had a lot to learn about
farming.
“I was considered innovative in
the surfing industry, but in farming, I
just copied people,” said Clark. “I ask
a lot of questions, and every year, my
questions get better.”
Recently, Clark has improved his
cattle herd’s genetics.
Clark’s program involves col-
lecting tissue samples from tiny
punch-holes in cows’ ears. He sends
the samples to a lab called Neogen,
where the DNA is analyzed. Clark
then logs into his online Neogen por-
tal to view data, including EPDs —
Expected Progeny Differences —
which evaluate an animal’s genetic
worth as a parent and predict how
future progeny will perform.
Clark uses the data to decide
which heifers to breed and which to
cull.
He also uses data on expected
progeny differences to decide which
bulls to buy. Every two years, Clark
buys a young, top-quality Black
Angus bull and uses its semen to
artificially inseminate 600 cows per
year, or 1,200 cows over the two-
year period.
“I’m very careful about the bull I
pick,” said Clark.
All of Clark’s artificial insemina-
tions are Black Angus bull to Black
Angus heifers. When a heifer fails
to conceive following AI, however,
Clark breeds a Charolais “cleanup
bull” to that heifer.
Clark created a database to track
genetic improvements over time.
“His cattle are real good qual-
ity,” said Mehrten Homer, founder of
Painted Hills Natural Beef, the brand
Clark sells to.
Clint Sexson, marketing and beef
cattle improvement committee chair
at Oregon Cattlemen’s Association,
said that while DNA collection to
enhance EPD accuracy is common in
purebred operations, it’s rare among
commercial producers like Clark.
“On the commercial side, I’d say
he’s probably on the forefront,” said
Sexson.
Clark breeds for three main traits:
easy birthing, small body size and
grading (mostly marbling). It might
seem counterintuitive to breed for
small animals; but Clark said he
aims for able-bodied cows that can
handle steep terrain and give birth
easily on the range.
Karen Launchbaugh, professor of
rangeland ecology and director of the
University of Idaho Rangeland Cen-
ter, said this kind of landscape-ori-
ented thinking is innovative.
“I think it’s becoming more com-
mon for people to get access to genet-
ics,” said Launchbaugh. “But what’s
not as common is thinking about
genetics in this landscape sense.
(Clark) is ahead of his time on that
one — thinking about how the cattle
fit the landscape.”
Clark often uses drones to find
cows on his vast property and uses
walkie-talkies to alert his seven
employees of the cows’ whereabouts.
Clark has also sought ways to
improve Hay Creek Ranch’s soil and
water resources.
He irrigates about 700 acres to
produce silage.
Recently, Clark has been using a
method called variable-rate fertiliz-
ing on his crop fields.
First, he analyzes the soil mosaic
in a field, both overhead using a
drone and on the ground by taking
soil samples. Based on this, he cre-
ates a virtual, multi-colored map of
his field. Each colored puzzle piece
represents a different soil profile
within the field.
He inserts this data, and a GPS
device, into his tractor. Then, when
the tractor moves across the field, it
releases different volumes of fertil-
izer over different parts of the field.
Using this “precision fertilizing”
method, Clark aims to be sustainable,
save money and improve soil health.
Clark has also looked for ways to
boost the ranch’s water supplies.
“With the drought, we’re really
scuffling for forage,” said Clark.
In Clark’s early years on the
ranch, he drilled wells, but as restric-
tions on drilling have intensified, he
has focused on re-developing his-
toric springs and finding ways to
move water.
Clark has set up several devices
for pumping water between ranges
using diesel pumps, generators, auto-
matically filling tanks, sensors, tubes
and timed pump devices.
“He really has improved the
property a lot with the wells and
pumps,” said Homer, of Painted
Hills Natural Beef.
Both Homer and Anderson, the
sheep farmer, said Clark is fortunate
that his former occupation left him
enough capital to invest in high-qual-
ity equipment like computer-con-
trolled pumps.
Though water resources in the
region continue to dwindle, Clark’s
innovations have helped stretch the
ranch’s water supplies.
According to historical records,
Clark has now owned Hay Creek
Ranch longer than any previous
owner. But what’s in store for the
farm’s future?
Clark has four children by two
marriages, but none of his children
are interested in farming.
“I think that’s the saddest part
of the whole deal. It’s sad that there
doesn’t seem to be anyone in line
to carry it on,” said Anderson, the
sheep rancher.
Clark plans to leave his prop-
erty to one of his children, a daugh-
ter. Locals have speculated on who
might eventually buy the farm
from her: A millionaire? A movie
agency looking to make Westerns?
An investment firm? Only time will
tell.
Whatever the future holds, Clark
says he’s grateful to live on Hay
Creek Ranch and plans to keep farm-
ing for as long as he can.
“The more I’m on the ranch,
the more interested I get in it,” said
Clark. “I’ve had two lives, but I wish
I’d been a rancher all my life.”
Forestland: Small woodland owners won’t be held to same standards
Continued from Page 1
under fire for rendering valuable
standing timber on private land
effectively worthless.
Aside from no-harvest buffers
expanding, the legislation imposes
restrictions on beaver trapping,
road building and steep slope
logging.
Industry estimates peg the state-
wide impact as a 10% cut in har-
vestable timber acreage, which will
roughly correlate with a decrease
in lumber and plywood production
and all the mill closures or curtail-
ments that entails, critics say.
The effect will be particularly
burdensome for landowners with
many streams on their properties,
including small woodland own-
ers who don’t own vast acreages
spread out over upland, lowland
and riparian areas, according to
detractors.
Supporters of the deal in the
timber industry say it ensures
future regulations under the state’s
Forest Practices Act will be guided
Mateusz Perkowski/Capital Press
Oregon Gov. Kate Brown spoke
at a May 18 signing ceremony
in Portland for bills that impose
new regulations on private for-
estland.
by an “adaptive management pro-
cess” that relies on research rather
than political maneuvering.
“Any changes to the For-
est Practices Act will be based
on sound science,” said Chris
Edwards, executive director of the
Oregon Forest & Industries Coun-
cil, a timber group. “The science
will lead us to agreements.”
Environmental groups that
signed onto the deal say their pub-
lic show of support will deflate any
future efforts to change the law
through ballot initiatives, given the
broad-based consensus behind the
new rules.
“It becomes harder for someone
to mount external efforts at the bal-
lot to do something different,” said
Sean Stevens, executive direc-
tor of the Oregon Wild nonprofit.
“There will be a little bit of stasis
that comes from this.”
If the federal government
approves the deal’s regulations
under a “habitat conservation
plan” for threatened and endan-
gered aquatic species, it would
protect against lawsuits alleging
landowners unlawfully harmed
them and their habitat.
“That gives them a shield from
liability,” said Ralph Bloemers,
co-founder of the Crag Law Center.
Even so, the habitat conserva-
tion plan must first be approved by
federal authorities through a public
process, and its protections don’t
extend to terrestrial species such
as the spotted owl. The plan also
doesn’t apply to liability under the
Clean Water Act.
Though a representative of the
Oregon Small Woodlands Asso-
ciation helped craft the deal, crit-
ics have accused the agreement’s
signatories of deliberating behind
closed doors without input from
the public.
Small woodland owners won’t
be held to the same standards
under the legislation as industrial
forest owners but the regulations
will still be more stringent than
they are now. The state’s Board of
Forestry must implement the new
rules before December.
Under companion legislation,
Senate Bill 1502, small wood-
land owners with fewer than 5,000
acres who abide by the stricter
industrial standards can obtain tax
credits to compensate for the loss
in revenues.
Small woodland owners are
more likely to live in the “wild-
land-urban interface” and thus the
significant reduction in their prop-
erty’s timber value will create pres-
sure to convert these forests to resi-
dential or other uses, according to
detractors.
For OSWA, it’s gratifying that
the unique circumstances of small
woodland owners were recog-
nized in the accord and they were
given special consideration in the
regulatory and tax provisions,
said Ken Nygren, the group’s
president.
By engaging in negotiations,
representatives of the timber
and environmental communities
learned their goals were not mutu-
ally exclusive, he said. They all
share the aim of keeping Oregon’s
forested landscape healthy.
“By seeing each other as people
and sharing our views with integ-
rity, we can achieve the hallowed
middle ground,” Nygren said.
Name: Committee is proposing to call Vespa veluntina the ‘yellow-legged hornet’
Continued from Page 1
and the UK have contacted
Looney to report sightings of
Asian hornets.
If Asian hornets were
introduced into the U.S., the
problem would increase, giv-
ing entomologists trying to
contain the invasive species
another problem to manage,
Looney said.
The society committee, at
Looney’s suggestion, is pro-
posing to call Vespa veluntina
the “yellow-legged hornet”
for its conspicuous yellow
legs.
There’s a third hornet in
the name game, Vespa soror.
One specimen was found in
British Columbia in 2019.
It has no common name in
English.
The entomological soci-
ety’s committee on names
has recommended naming it
the “southern giant hornet.”
It’s range in Asia overlaps
with Asian giant hornets, but
extends farther south.
The society is circulating
all three names to its mem-
bers for comment.
Entomologists
disdain
the term “murder hornets,” a
headline-grabbing term that
reflects the species’ painful
sting and knack for decapitat-
ing bees.
The society’s guidelines
on naming insects include
avoiding terms that “unnec-
essarily incite offense, fear or
promote negative emotional
reactions.”
Society guidelines also
discourage names based on
race, ethnicity or cultures.
As an alternative to Asian
giant hornet, Looney origi-
nally offered “giant hornet”
and “northern giant hornet.”
In comments to the commit-
tee, Looney said a new name
that was too different would
be confusing and invite pub-
lic ridicule.
The society’s naming
committee discussed both and
decided that “northern giant
hornet” made clearer which
species was being referred to.
Looney made the point in
his submission to the com-
mon name committee that all
hornets are from Asia.
“As such, ‘Asian’ does
not communicate anything
unique or helpful about the
insect’s biology, appearance,
or behavior,” he wrote.