FRIDAY, MAY 1, 2015
Outdoor Rec / Local
County bans pot
Todd Arriola /The Baker County Press
A group of protesters gathered outside the Courthouse Wednesday while Com-
missioners discussed the new marijuana ban ordinance.
CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1
Shortly after the Pledge
of Allegiance and Invoca-
tion, Bennett moved to
adopt the agenda, with a
second from Kerns. The
motion carried.
As there were no items
to discuss for the citizens’
participation segment of
the session, the public
hearing was held concern-
ing the ordinance.
Shirtcliff provided the
Board with a synopsis
regarding the ordinance,
and discussed the issues
encountered in Colorado
and Washington, including
teen marijuana usage and
crime rates. He said since
the moratorium passed in
Baker County a year ago
addressing dispensaries
expires at the end of April,
the moratorium should
be passed once again and
continued at this time,
because the opportunity
could be lost to address the
issue later.
Part of his argument is
that local entities should
be allowed to make the
decision regarding dis-
pensaries, and he believes
that the opinion is in
good standing. Shirtcliff
believes that the existence
of medical marijuana fa-
cilities still violates federal
law. He encouraged the
Board to pass the ordi-
nance at this time, and said
that if legislation affects
the ordinance at a later
date, this can be addressed,
and adjustments can be
made.
The purpose for the ordi-
nance is stated as a prohi-
bition of “…the operation
of commercial Marijuana
Facilities/Dispensaries as
well Marijuana Producers,
Processors, Wholesalers,
Retailers and Marijuana
Testing Facilities. The
Baker County Board of
Commissioners find that
the operation of these fa-
cilities and establishments
as described in House Bill
3460 and Ballot Measure
91 conflict with federal
law. Therefore, the Baker
County Board of Com-
missioners hereby place a
prohibition on the opera-
tion of such facilities.”
Bennett pointed out that
this ordinance would not
cover incorporated cities
in the county, like Haines,
Huntington, Richland,
Sumpter and Unity, for ex-
ample. It would cover the
unincorporated portions of
the county.
Harvey explained the
testimony process, say-
ing that any individuals
in favor of passing the
ordinance are given an
opportunity to speak first,
and then those in opposi-
tion are allowed to speak.
He asked if any attendees
were in favor of passing
the ordinance, and none
stated so. He asked if any
were in opposition, and
Carol Free spoke with the
Board first.
She voiced her concerns
with passing the ordinance,
and said that it doesn’t
have anything to do with
her opening a dispensary,
because she said she has
no plans to. She said that
since state legislation has
been passed allowing
dispensaries to exist, they
should be allowed within
the county. Free talked
about family members
who’ve died from can-
cer, and the difficulties in
obtaining medications, in-
cluding medical marijuana,
and the issues with access
in rural areas.
Free talked about the
success with dispensaries
in western Oregon, and
explained the dispensary
process and security and
access issues and solutions
with the Board.
Harvey said the Board
has to look at the broader
picture, and do what’s best
for the county, and Free
said she can understand
both sides of the argument.
Free and Harvey discussed
access issues, including the
protection of children and
others, and Harvey said the
question is whether Baker
County wants dispensaries
here.
Shaw spoke with the
Board next, and began by
explaining the process for
obtaining medical mari-
juana cards. He said there
are probably only 25 to 30
Letter to the Editor Policy: The Baker
County Press reserves the right not to pub-
lish letters containing factual falsehoods or
incoherent narrative. Letters promoting or
detracting from specific for-profit business-
es will not be published. Word limit is 375
words per letter. Letters are limited to one
every other week per author. Letters should
be submitted to Editor@TheBakerCounty-
Press.com.
Advertising and Opinion Page Dis-
claimer: Opinions submitted as Guest
grow sites in Baker Coun-
ty, and talked about the
difficulty with supplying
the individuals who hold
cards in the county—257,
according to Baker City
Police Chief Wyn Lohner,
Shaw said. 97 are currently
being processed, according
to Free.
Shaw explained that
licensed growers can
currently legally have six
mature marijuana plants at
one time per patient, and
that the maximum number
of patients is four, and the
maximum number of ma-
ture plants is 24. He said
that a mature plant is con-
sidered to be at least one
foot in height, or one foot
in diameter. In addition, he
said, licensed growers can
have 18 marijuana plant
starts in their possession.
Shaw explained the
large amount of marijuana
needed to be processed
into some medicinal forms,
and the Board discussed
with him this issue. Ben-
nett commented that he has
personally seen six plants
supply a large amount of
marijuana, with a compe-
tent, licensed grower.
When asked by Harvey
whether Shaw supports
recreational marijuana use,
he said on a personal level,
he does not, but that his
personal view shouldn’t be
associated with the medi-
cal marijuana community,
which he represents. Har-
vey explained the situation
with alcohol addiction and
access locally, that it would
be mirrored with marijuana
use, and Shaw disagreed.
The Board closed the
public portion of the
hearing, and discussed the
details of the ordinance.
Kerns moved, and Ben-
nett seconded, that the
ordinance be adopted, by
reading title only, and the
motion carried. Bennett
moved, and Kerns sec-
onded, that the ordinance
be adopted, by reading
title only, and the motion
carried. The ordinance
was adopted (there are
only two readings required
in order to adopt county
ordinances).
Opinions or Letters to the Editor express
the opinions of their authors, and have not
been authored by and are not necessarily
the opinions of The Baker County Press, any
of our staff, management, independent
contractors or affiliates. Advertisements
placed by political groups, candidates,
businesses, etc., are printed as a paid
service, which does not constitute an
endorsement of or fulfillment obligation
by this newspaper for the products or
services advertised.
Find us on Facebook at
www.Facebook.com/TheBCPress
THE BAKER COUNTY PRESS — 7
A little on OR-22
ing about a week
there. No collared
wolves have yet
been documented
crossing the Co-
lumbia River, but
the Snake River
has been crossed
many times, ac-
cording to ODFW.
In early March,
OR22 crossed
back into Oregon
THE OUTDOOR COLUMN near Brownlee
Reservoir, and hung
By Todd Arriola
around the Eagle
Cap Wilderness
There’s been an ongo-
area
near
Keating, until the
ing, heated debate regard-
first
week
of April. This is
ing northeastern Oregon
when
he
headed
south.
gray wolves, including the
I’m
not
one
to
claim to
question of de-listing from
be
a
psychic
in
the
mind
the Oregon Endangered
of
a
wolf,
and
neither
Species Act (OESA), but
I’d like to narrow the focus is Morgan, so he said
a bit, and talk about a two- simply that, “Until they
get somewhere, you don‘t
year-old male wolf known
know where they‘re going
as OR22.
to be,” and he said that
He was born in April
OR22 is around the age
2013 as a member of the
when dispersal is common.
Umatilla River Pack, a
He did cross I-84 south
pack known to be gener-
of Baker City, which is
ally in an area—natal
also not uncommon, since
territory—northeast of
ODFW reported that this
Pendleton. In October of
type of crossing has been
that year, a GPS-enabled
documented multiple times
tracking collar was placed
with different collared
around his neck, said Russ
wolves. Clearly, neither
Morgan, ODFW Wolf
the highways, nor the riv-
Program Coordinator,
located in La Grande. Two ers, are barriers to a wolf’s
years later, this same collar movements. Ironically,
the only known highway-
remains in place.
related mortality in Oregon
In mid-February this
year, OR22 separated from was a dispersing wolf from
Idaho, struck by a vehicle
the pack, and later that
on I-84 south of Baker, in
month, crossed the Snake
May 2000, according to
River into Idaho, stay-
ODFW.
OR22 worked his way
south, and as of this writ-
ing, he’s in an area south-
east of Ontario, Morgan
said. Not even Morgan
can see the wolf’s move-
ments in real-time, so for
you techies out there, don‘t
expect this capability any
time soon. But, the track-
ing collar does allow him
to see where the wolf’s
been, he said. “The field
biologists have been work-
ing hard to keep livestock
producers informed of his
movements in the Ontario
area,” he said. Speaking
of the movements, Morgan
said, “They have been
impressive.”
Many people in Baker in
Malheur counties have ex-
pressed their curiosity and
surprise regarding OR22’s
movements, consider-
ing he’s stayed in a drier,
desert region, instead of
the preferred mountainous
region, which offers more
cover and protection, and
prey opportunities. Mor-
gan said, “He’s less likely
to stay down in the desert,
and more likely to head
for mountainous country.”
There’s no other known
wolf activity in that area
Morgan’s aware of.
It’s hard to say where
OR22 will finally end up,
and nobody can predict
that, but his travels seem
to be not a case of a “rogue
wolf,“ but rather, a case of
a dispersing wolf, wander-
ing until he finds a place to
call home.