Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About The Baker County press. (Baker City, Ore.) 2014-current | View Entire Issue (Nov. 20, 2015)
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2015 THE BAKER COUNTY PRESS — 7 Outdoor Rec / Local Winter is coming ... with poachers determined individuals. In Oregon, for example, according to Oregon Revised Stat- utes (ORS) 496.705, a deer taken il- legally, with at least four points on one antler, could cost a poach- THE OUTDOOR COLUMN er $7,500; an elk, with By Todd Arriola at least six November brings points on with it clear signs of the one antler, $15,000; an upcoming winter season; antelope, with at least one plummeting temperatures, horn equal to or greater piercing wind, driven than 14 inches, $7,500; a snow, and the appearance mountain sheep, with at of what hunters and non- least one horn equal to or hunters alike consider a greater than one half curl, most despicable creature: or a mountain goat, with the poacher. at least one horn equal to Poaching is, of course, or greater than 6 inches, the unlawful taking or $25,000. The list includes killing of wildlife, and, it’s birds and fi sh, and a wide an illegal act that’s treated range of penalties. with the utmost serious- The point is, poaching ness, no matter the side of can cost one thousands. the political aisle where Not only that, but, “Our one chooses to reside. heritage is at risk every The penalties for poach- time an animal is poached, ing alone should be a and it is time to get serious deterrent, but, as is almost about this on-going prob- always the case with lem,” said Bruce Pettet, violations of the law, that’s President and CEO of hardly a roadblock for American sporting optics maker, Leopold & Stevens. Leopold & Stevens is partnering with the Boone and Crockett Club (B&C) to conduct a research pro- gram, dubbed “Poach and Pay,” in order to determine whether higher fi nes will be a deterrent to poach- ing, “…in an effort to curb wildlife crime and more severely punish those who steal valuable conservation resources,” according to B&C. The Poach and Pay program is led by B&C Of- fi cial Measurer and former Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks biologist Vickie Edwards. Interviews will be con- ducted with state agencies, according to B&C, and data will be gathered, the result of which may be a more appropriate scale for restitution, to aid in the deterrence of poach- ing, and to compensate for the rising costs of law enforcement and conserva- tion efforts. The report is expected by summer of 2017. Oregon, it appears, al- ready employs elements of the B&C’s big game scor- ing system in its poaching penalties. The scoring system is the recognized standard for the evalua- tion of big-game trophies in North America, which makes it a valuable law en- forcement tool, regarding more applicable penalties, according to B&C. So, what do hunters think of this program? A recent survey of hunters conduct- ed by the researchers found that 92.6% of respondents supported higher fi nes for poaching big game, and 88% supported even higher fi nes for poaching trophy big game, said B&C. B&C President Morrie Stevens said, “Hunters and poachers are not brothers. Hunters support conserva- tion and work to protect wildlife. Poaching is a crime and was established as such at the earliest stages of the conservation movement. For far too long, being convicted of poaching a deer or another big game animal has been akin to getting a speeding ticket in terms of the sever- ity of punishment. Hunters tell us they want to see punishments equal to the crimes.” What the report will ultimately show remains to be seen, but, the issue of poaching isn’t going away any time soon, and, neither are the penalties for com- mitting it… Deer Creek project complete Submitted Photo. Deer Creek juniper shown after the project. The Baker Valley Soil and Water Conservation District partnered with a local landowner to stabilize the banks of Deer Creek in Baker Valley. Before the landowner approached the SWCD for assistance, there was very little vegetation on the immediate banks, and elk herds in the area were browsing what veg- etation was present. With- out a healthy riparian area, the banks began to cut and started sloughing into Deer Creek, causing sedimenta- tion to enter the creek and move downstream. To help mitigate the eroding banks, Juniper skeletons were placed along the worst sections of the creek during low fl ows. Log jams and root wads were also placed in the cut banks in an effort to decrease some of the energy of the stream, as well as to prevent further erosion and cutting. These woody structures will catch sediment that was being washed downstream, and will help protect the young vegetation from browsing. These project activities will continue to improve water quality over time, and will benefi t the landowner by conserving pasture ground that was being lost every year to erosion. Those who could benefi t from a conservation project on their land can contact the SWCD offi ce at 541-523-7121. Group will push for Oregon trapping ban in 2016 BY TODD ARRIOLA Todd@TheBakerCountyPress.com The organization TrapFree Oregon has been attempting to accomplish what it failed to do in time for the General Election in 2014—place a trapping ban measure on the state- wide ballot for 2016. The Bend-based Trap- Free Oregon (TFO), whose mission, stated on social media, is to “Ban fur trapping in Oregon!” and to “Ban M44 (sodium cyanide),” made a similar attempt to get the initiative on the ballot for the 2014 voting season, however, according to its own infor- mation, there were several reasons cited why that goal was thwarted, and TFO refocused its efforts: “1) Our recent polling indicates that very few Oregonians even know that trapping is legal and practiced all over the state. Education is going to take longer than the time we have before the 2014 ballot. “2) Because of the low level of understanding about trapping, our polling numbers in favor of signifi - cant trapping restrictions were NOT high enough at this point to proceed. “3) Our 2014 ballot ini- tiative wording restricted the types of traps that could be used on private land. It was primarily the body-gripping traps that cause the most pain and suffering in the trapped animal, but our polling shows that any measure that tries to restrict the rights of private property owners in OR faces sig- nifi cant opposition and is unlikely to pass. “4) Failure is NOT an option on this one. The TFO feels that the extra two years will allow us to do what needs to be done to succeed. Rushing this process is not a good idea.” The failed attempt for the 2014 election was made by chief petitioners Mary Launer and Christo- pher Baker, of Bend, Or- egon, and Miles Hutchins, of Redmond, Oregon. The petition, which was a statu- tory amendment proposal, had, as the certifi ed ballot title, the following: “Bans commercial, recreational trapping; trading in resultant fur/body parts; Why advertise with us? David Conn david@thebakercountypress.com or call 541.523.5524 Baker City, Haines • Low rates per column inch & promotional deals • Color at no additional charge as space permits • Friendly, professional sales staff Wendee Morrissey wendee@thebakercountypress. com or call 541.805.1688. Sumpter, Bates, Richland, Halfway, Medical Springs, Keating Family owned and operated. Packed with local news! • All display ads are also posted to our Facebook page, which means thousands of individuals see your ad from that source alone. We’re the only local paper that offers this service! poisoning mammals; body- gripping traps.” Comments on the peti- tion were received by the Secretary of State from Ross Day, on behalf of the Oregon Outdoor Council Association (OOCA), stating that the true subject matter of the petition was “the complete and total ban of the trapping of predatory animals by private individuals, yet creating an exception for the government,” and that the draft caption “focuses on a politically charged term--’poisoning’--that is designed to infl uence the voter into supporting” the measure. Further comments indicating issues with the petition were received by John Fine, on behalf of the Oregon Sheep Grow- ers Association. Baker also submitted comments, with proposed ballot title changes, though the State found issues with the in- terpretations and proposed changes. The original cap- tion read “Bans trapping, poisoning animals; trading in fur/body parts of trapped animal; body-gripping traps,” and was ultimately amended by the State, as the aforementioned certi- fi ed title. Jim Soares, Advi- sory Board ember of the OOCA, said, of the potential 2016 measure, “Some sportsmen may think that they will not be affected, but they need to think again. Anti-trapping and anti-hunting groups try to pick off the smaller groups that they think are most vulnerable, but we have learned that ulti- mately their goal is to end all human use of wildlife. Sportsmen need to pay attention to this as loss for one of us is a loss for all of us.” “If you hunt ungulates you could be impacted by a trapping ban…If each coyote and bobcat takes just one elk calf, deer, or antelope fawn, there are that many less potentially available to hunters. If each coyote and bobcat takes multiple fawns, you can readily see the impact on your hunting opportunities especially in areas where some of these ungulate populations may be decreasing. If you add in predation by cougars, bears and now wolves, you can only imagine the loss in hunting opportuni- ties. Trapping is the most effective way to keep coyotes and other preda- tor numbers in check, and without that tool very high populations of coyotes and other predators could have disastrous results for hunt- ers, ranchers, and other groups,” Soares said. “This work (trapping) is done at no cost to the tax payers and is a great advantage to the refuge systems. Anti-trappers try to portray trappers as bloodthirsty individuals who only want to kill as many furbearers as pos- sible. Nothing could be further from the truth,” Soares said, explaining the knowledge and adherence to a code of ethics required to be a trapper, along with the regulations and moni- toring regularly enforced by the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). Elements of the ODFW trapping regula- tions were developed with assistance from the OOCA. Soares said, “The disastrous bear-cougar initiative that passed in 1994 should have opened everyone’s eyes to the results of allowing the anti crowd to infl uence wildlife management. That ballot initiative was not part of any management strategy by the ODFW, or any pro- trapping or pro-hunting group, but rather the efforts of those opposed to our way of life.” SWCD: Powder River enhancements made The Powder River is listed by the state of Oregon for not meeting water quality standards for temperature, bacteria, and dissolved oxygen, so any project that works to im- prove water quality is very important to the Powder River Watershed. On one landowner's property, the banks of the Powder River were being degraded and trampled due to livestock congregating and feeding near the river in the winter months. Sediment and nutrients would enter the Powder River, and travel down- stream. The Baker Valley SWCD partnered with landowners to install 385 feet of riparian fencing along the Powder River. This will allow for the exclusion of livestock along this stretch of the stream, thus decreasing trampling and sedimenta- tion. The landowners installed 50 willow plantings along the river to help jump-start woody vegetation in the riparian area. Three off-stream water- ing troughs were also installed on the property, and fl ow from an existing well. Off stream water will keep livestock off the banks of the Powder River, and will allow the land- owners to better manage grazing rotations on their property.
