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.