Friday, June 24, 2022
CapitalPress.com 3
Irrigators in Oregon’s Harney Basin face uncertain path forward
By MATEUSZ PERKOWSKI
Capital Press
A
community-based
plan for curbing exces-
sive groundwater pumping
in Oregon’s Harney Basin
is nearly done, potentially
offering an alternative to
government-mandated irri-
gation shutdowns.
The recommendations are
expected to be finished next
year, concluding roughly
six years of negotiations
between water users, envi-
ronmental advocates and
government officials.
Whether
the
strat-
egy amounts to anything
more than a stack of papers
remains unknown, though.
The fear is that the steps
outlined in the “place-based”
plan won’t actually be imple-
mented even if they’re offi-
cially approved by the
Oregon Water Resources
Commission, said Rep. Mark
Owens, R-Crane, an alfalfa
farmer who’s helped write
the plan.
“Thanks for your six
years of work. We’ll put your
plan on a shelf and talk to
you later,” Owens said of that
possibility.
For several years, the
“collaborative” group that’s
developed the plan has asked
Oregon water regulators
whether they’’ll throw their
weight behind the integrated
strategy in lieu of a purely
enforcement-based solution.
The question of what
“state recognition” will actu-
ally mean for the plan arose
during the commission’s
most recent meeting on June
17, but state officials did not
have a certain answer.
“In concrete terms, we
don’t know either,” said Meg
Reeves, the commission’s
chair and a retired attorney
for Oregon State University.
Hopefully, the commis-
sion will have more clarity
by the time the plan is actu-
ally completed, she said.
The problem can’t be
blamed on indecisiveness by
the commission or the state
Water Resources Depart-
ment, since it’s the result of
ambiguity in state law, said
Owens.
“They’re struggling with
it, too,” he said. “They don’t
know what it means.”
The Harney Basin’s plan
was developed under the
OWRD’s authority to issue
grants for “place-based”
water resources strategies,
which lawmakers originally
created in 2015.
However, the statute
doesn’t explain the value of
these “place-based” plans or
how they’ll be implemented,
Owens said.
“There was just no meat
on the bones about what
actually happened after the
plan,” he said.
Fleshing out those details
will require further action by
the Legislature, which will
have an opportunity to revisit
the issue next year, Owens
said. Unless agency’s place-
based planning authority is
extended, it’s set to expire in
mid-2023.
As with any substantive
change to water law, expand-
ing the scope of place-based
planning is easier said than
done.
Instead of implementing
the plan’s recommendations,
state water regulators may
instead declare the Harney
Basin a “critical groundwa-
ter area.”
That will provide OWRD
with the power to shut
down previously-permitted
groundwater pumping — a
blunt regulatory tool that’s
raised concerns about serious
damage to the irrigation-de-
pendent local economy.
Even if the collabora-
tive’s approach is adopted,
voluntary steps are likely to
occur on a parallel track with
enforcement actions under
a critical groundwater area
designation, Owens said.
“It’s going to have to be
the carrot and the stick,” he
said.
The integrated plan’s
strategy may prove contro-
versial among the region’s
irrigators.
Those with senior water
rights would be less likely
to face immediate enforce-
ment and some may not
see the value in voluntary
curtailments.
Whatever approach is
taken, it’s virtually inevi-
table that irrigation will be
decreased to stabilize the
basin’s
over-appropriated
groundwater levels, Owens
said. “We’re going to have to
dry some water up. There’s
no doubt in my mind.”
A
strict
regulatory
approach could shut off
60-70% of the basin’s irriga-
tion water, which would have
serious impacts to the com-
munity, he said.
The integrated plan, on the
other hand, would decrease
water use by helping farm-
ers invest in more efficient
irrigation equipment and to
switch away from alfalfa
to less thirsty crops, among
other steps.
“We’re going to have to
get creative,” Owens said.
While the collaborative
group has been devising the
plan, OWRD has worked
with the U.S. Geological
Survey on a comprehensive
groundwater study of the
basin, which was completed
this year.
The research and analysis
have given the agency a more
detailed “water budget” of the
basin’s groundwater flows,
and how they’re affected by
geology, said Justin Iverson,
OWRD’s groundwater sec-
tion manager.
ODFW OKs killing more wolves from NE Oregon pack
By GEORGE PLAVEN
Capital Press
JOSEPH, Ore. — The
Oregon Department of Fish
and Wildlife has approved
killing more wolves from the
Chesnimnus pack in Wal-
lowa County to curb attacks
on livestock.
ODFW issued its second
kill permit for Chesnimnus
wolves on June 17 after two
yearling males were already
removed from the pack
under a separate permit ear-
lier this spring.
Since April 25, ODFW
biologists have attributed
five confirmed and two
“probable” depredations of
cattle to the pack in graz-
ing pastures north of Joseph.
The two most recent inci-
dents were investigated June
4.
The agency issued its first
permit April 29 to cull two
wolves from the pack. One
yearling male was shot May
3, and the second on June 10.
Four days later, ODFW
again authorized lethal
take — this time for four
Chesnimnus wolves, citing
an ongoing threat to live-
stock in the area. The permit
runs through July 17.
ODFW
The breeding male of the Chesnimnus Pack caught on
camera during the winter survey on U.S. Forest Service
land in northern Wallowa County, Ore., in 2018.
The decision has again
inflamed emotions among
both ranchers and wild-
life advocates who disagree
sharply about how wolves
should be managed. Oregon
has at least 175 wolves state-
wide, though that is a mini-
mum estimate based on veri-
fied evidence.
Sristi Kamal, senior
Northwest representative for
Defenders of Wildlife, said
that if the latest permit is
fully executed, it will jeop-
ardize the survival of the
Chesnimnus pack. The pack
had at least nine members by
the end of 2021, according
to ODFW’s annual popula-
tion survey.
“We are hoping that
ODFW will not target help-
less pups again but that
means the permit will essen-
tially wipe out most of the
adult and yearling mem-
bers,” Kamal said in a state-
ment. “Depending on which
two (or) three wolves are
left, the survival chances
of the pups decreases
significantly.”
Kamal said the timing
of the permit was also con-
cerning, since there were
no further documented dep-
redations between the two
permits.
“This permit feels unjus-
tified,” she said.
Ranchers,
meanwhile,
have argued for killing the
entire Chesnimnus pack,
claiming that non-lethal
deterrents such as patrolling
cattle and adjusting grazing
schedules are not working to
prevent losses.
John Williams, wolf com-
mittee co-chairman for the
Oregon Cattlemen’s Asso-
ciation, said one heavily
affected producer on Crow
Creek has done everything
humanly possible to keep
wolves away from his herd.
“He’s
still
getting
harassed, cattle chased and
run through fences,” Wil-
liams said. “It’s ongoing and
it’s continuing ... The wolves
that are there have decided
to turn to livestock.”
ODFW agreed, stat-
ing that while the rancher
has increased human pres-
ence to scare off wolves and
removed potential attrac-
tants such as bone piles and
carcasses, attacks on cattle
have continued.
Ballot title certified for revived animal cruelty initiative
By GEORGE PLAVEN
Capital Press
SALEM — A controver-
sial voter initiative in Oregon
that would remove exemp-
tions for farming and ranch-
ing under the state’s animal
cruelty laws is being revived
for another run.
Proponents of Initia-
tive Petition 3 — named the
Abuse, Neglect and Assault
Exemption Modification and
Improvement Act — took
another step toward qualify-
ing for the 2024 general elec-
tion after being issued a cer-
tified ballot title on June 13.
IP3 is essentially a reboot
on Initiative Petition 13,
which was filed last year for
the 2022 election. It calls
for amending Oregon’s ani-
mal abuse and neglect stat-
utes, abolishing longstanding
exemptions for agriculture.
The result would make it
a crime to slaughter livestock
for food, while also banning
common animal husbandry
practices such as branding
and dehorning cattle. Artifi-
cial insemination would fur-
thermore be considered sex-
ual assault of an animal, a
Class C felony.
Exemptions for hunting,
fishing, rodeos, pest control,
scientific research and wild-
life management would like-
wise be stripped away under
the the proposal.
According to the “Yes on
IP3” campaign website, the
laws would retain exemp-
tions for killing or injuring
George Plaven/Capital Press
Holstein cows eat feed in-
side the dairy barn at Til-
la-Bay Farms in Tillamook,
on Oregon’s North Coast.
animals in cases of self-de-
fense and providing veteri-
nary care.
David Michelson, a Port-
land-based animal rights
activist and lead organizer for
the campaign, said IP13 failed
to garner enough signatures
for the 2022 ballot because,
“unlike the claims some have
made that we receive funding
from the likes of (George)
Soros or (Bill) Gates, this is
a very grassroots initiative
that had started with very few
team members.”
“Since we started this pro-
cess in November 2020, we
have steadily grown in sup-
port and are hopeful of our
chances for qualifying in
2024,” Michelson said in
response to questions emailed
by the Capital Press.
Petitioners filed IP3 on
March 16. It is largely the
same as IP13, but with two
additions, Michelson said.
First, he said IP3 would
remove additional exemp-
tions for livestock and farmed
animals under animal neglect
statutes requiring they have
access to “adequate bedding,
adequate shelter and other
minimum care provisions.”
Second, the initiative
would make it so that anyone
convicted of animal cruelty
could not own any animal for
5-15 years, depending on the
severity of the crime.
While the attorney gen-
eral did certify the ballot title
for IP3, supporters are not
yet approved to start circulat-
ing the petition. Those who
commented on the draft bal-
lot title for IP3 may appeal
the certified title to the Ore-
gon Supreme Court. Appeals
are due June 28.
If approved, the cam-
paign would need to collect
112,020 signatures to place
IP3 on the 2024 ballot.
As it was with IP13, farm-
ing, ranching and hunting
groups fiercely oppose the
measure and are preparing to
push back against it.
Tami Kerr, executive
director of the Oregon Dairy
Farmers Association, said
IP3 would put dairies and
cattle producers out of busi-
ness, hurting rural communi-
ties statewide.
“I know how hard our
producers work, my fam-
ily included. It’s personally
offensive,” Kerr said. “As
crazy as this is, and as neg-
ative as it would be to our
rural communities, I would
hope that a lot of our elected
officials would speak out in
opposition to it, our state sen-
ators included.”
Sarah Bassing/University of Washington
WDFW kills two
wolves in Togo pack
By DON JENKINS
Capital Press
Two wolves in a pack
that has been preying on
calves in northeast Wash-
ington have been killed by
the Washington Depart-
ment of Fish and Wildlife.
The
department
removed an adult male
June 17 in the Togo pack
territory in Ferry County.
A yearling female wolf
was removed June 14.
The department said
it does not plan to kill
more wolves, though it
may if the pack contin-
ues to attack cattle. The
department counted seven
wolves in the Togo pack at
the end of 2021.
Fish and Wildlife Direc-
tor Kelly Susewind on June
13 authorized removing up
to two wolves. The depart-
ment had documented four
attacks on private grazing
lands in the past month.
The last predation
was confirmed June 11.
According to the depart-
ment, wildlife managers
stand a better chance of
changing a pack’s habits if
wolves are removed within
two weeks of a predation.
The Togo pack has had
a history of attacking cat-
tle. Previously, the depart-
ment had killed one wolf
in five lethal-control orders
dating back to 2018.
Fish and Wildlife des-
ignates the Togo pack ter-
ritory a chronic-conflict
zone, the only one in the
state. With the designa-
tion has come heightened
expectations for ranch-
ers to employ range-riders
and other non-lethal ways
to protect livestock from
wolves.
The department con-
cluded that even with the
non-lethal measures in
place, the pack would con-
tinue to prey on cattle.
WE SPECIALIZE IN BULK BAGS!
BAGS:
• Seed Bags
• Fertilizer Bags
• Feed Bags
• Potato Bags
• Printed Bags
• Plain Bags
• Bulk Bags
• Totes
• Woven Polypropylene
• Bopp
• Polyethylene
• Pocket Bags
• Roll Stock & More!
HAY PRESS SUPPORT:
• Hay Sleeves
• Strap
• Totes
• Printed or Plain
• Stretch Film
(ALL GAUGES)
WAREHOUSE
PACKAGING:
• Stretch Film
• Pallet Sheets
• Pallet Covers
LOCATIONS:
Albany, Oregon (MAIN OFFICE)
Ellensburg, Washington
CONTACT INFORMATION:
Phone: 855-928-3856
Fax: 541-497-6262
info@westernpackaging.com
.......................................................
CUSTOMER SERVICE
IS OUR TOP PRIORITY!
w w w. w e s t e r n p a c k a g i n g. c o m