The Baker County press. (Baker City, Ore.) 2014-current, December 18, 2015, Image 7

The Baker County press., December 18, 2015, Page 7, Image 7

Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR

About The Baker County press. (Baker City, Ore.) 2014-current | View Entire Issue (Dec. 18, 2015)

Prev Page of 12 Next Prev Issue Next Text PDF JP2 (1.3 MB) Clip/Print Image

Return to Top

Prev Page of 12 Next Prev Issue Next

Newspaper Page TextFRIDAY, DECEMBER 18, 2015 THE BAKER COUNTY PRESS — 7 Outdoor Rec / Local My thoughts on the continued Boise Y swim meet results case of Witty and the wolf The case was moved to Harney County be- cause, Grant County Dis- trict Attorney Jim Carpen- ter is friends with Witty’s family, and Carpenter understand- ably wished to avoid a THE OUTDOOR COLUMN possible confl ict of By Todd Arriola interest. A recent incident in OR22, a Grant County highlighted gray, male wolf formerly the political, economic, of the Umatilla River pack, cultural and physical born in April 2013, was divides among Oregonians, trapped and ﬁ tted with a with one of the state’s most Global Positioning Satel- controversial subjects: the lite (GPS) collar, on Octo- gray wolf. ber 26, 2013, by ODFW. Next month, a plea hear- In mid-February 2015, ing is scheduled in Harney OR22 dispersed from the County Circuit Court, in pack, which was generally Burns, in connection with based in an area northeast a wolf shooting incident of Pendleton. involving Brennon D. Since that time, OR22’s Witty, 25, of Baker City, dispersal included crossing in the Crane Prairie area in the Snake River into Idaho Grant County on October in late February, crossing 6, 2015, said the Harney back into Oregon near County District Attorney’s Brownlee Reservoir in Ofﬁ ce. early March, and heading According to Harney south near Ontario in early County District Attorney April (including crossing Tim Colahan, Witty has I-84 south of Baker City), been charged with Taking eventually ending up in a Threatened/Endangered Grant County. Species—Wolf (Oregon Since the arrival of wolf Revised Statutes, ORS B-45 into Oregon from 498.026), and Hunting the Idaho experimental With a Centerﬁ re Rifl e population in 1999, ﬁ erce Without a Big Game Tag debate and controversy re- (ORS 498.002, and Oregon garding wolves has ensued. Administrative Rules, The wolf was returned to OAR 635-065-0740), Class Idaho by the United States A misdemeanors, both with Fish and Wildlife Ser- a maximum penalty of up vice (USFWS) that same to a year in jail and/or a year, but, more dispersing ﬁ ne of $6,250. wolves from Idaho were On October 6, 2015, Wit- expected, as is evidenced ty reported to the Oregon by the current population, Department of Fish and along with expected depre- Wildlife (ODFW) in Can- dation. It should be noted yon City that he had shot that, natural dispersal from and killed a wolf while he Idaho was to be (and is) was hunting coyotes, south the main source of popula- of Prairie City, said the tions of wolves in Oregon, Oregon State Police (OSP), not the active relocation of who investigated the inci- wolves from other states, dent, along with ODFW. according to ODFW. Witty met with ODFW ODFW stated, “Begin- and OSP, who recovered ning in 1999, upon learn- a deceased wolf (OR22) ing of the reintroduction from private property, near of wolves in Idaho, local Prairie City. On October governments in northeast 19, 2015, OSP concluded Oregon took action to its investigation of the respond to potential wolf incident, and delivered migration into Oregon…” a report with all factual A Wolf Summit was details to the Grant County convened in Enterprise, by District Attorney’s Ofﬁ ce Wallowa County in Febru- for review, said OSP. ary 2000, and, several A note about such counties passed resolu- details, which could not tions calling for the return be released at this time to of wolves to Idaho by the public. According to USFWS, with supporting Central Records Supervi- resolutions passed by the sor Erin Redding of OSP, state and county associa- “ORS 192.501(3) exempts tions. This included the from disclosure informa- Association of Oregon tion related to on-going Counties 1999 resolution investigations or where 99-F6, asking that wolves prosecution is still pending not be introduced or pro- or contemplated.” tected under the ESA, and, On December 2, 2015, the National Association of during Witty’s afternoon Counties 2001-2002 reso- arraignment, he stated lution, requesting USFWS he would seek court- “…not develop plans for appointed counsel. He was introducing predators into appointed attorney John public lands.” B. Lamborn of Burns, and, Acknowledging the Witty’s plea hearing is potential issues in distin- scheduled for January 12, guishing coyotes from 2015, at 10 a.m., in Harney wolves, ODFW has County Circuit Court, reserved a section in its big according to Colahan. game hunting regulations to address the topic, stating that, “Dog, coyote, and cougar paw prints can be mistaken for wolf tracks,” and, “…wolf pups in the mid-summer and fall can closely resemble coyotes, and it can be difﬁ cult to tell them apart.” ODFW states further that, “While hunting coyote in wolf country, you should not shoot unless you are sure of your target.“ ODFW’s own Areas of Known Wolf Activity (AKWA) maps and data indicate the majority of gray wolves in the state are located in the northeastern corner (not Grant County). At the time of the inci- dent, wolves in eastern Oregon were not listed as endangered under the federal Endangered Spe- cies Act (ESA), but, they were listed under the Oregon ESA. They were delisted under the Oregon ESA only a month later, on November 9, 2015, by the Fish and Wildlife Commis- sion (ofﬁ cially, November 10, by the Secretary of State), and, still considered a “special status game mammal.” The gray wolf, whose status was previous- ly that of protected non- game wildlife, was given this confusing designation during the Oregon 2009 Legislative Session, cour- tesy of House Bill 3089. West of Highways 395-78- 95, wolves are additionally listed under the federal ESA, with maximum pen- alties for killing one up to an astronomical $100,000, and a year in jail. According to the Oregon Wolf Conservation and Management Plan, “The (special game mammal) status would not preclude the use of controlled take through hunting and trapping in response to management concerns… Controlled take of wolves would be permitted as a management response tool to assist ODFW in its wildlife management efforts only after the wolf population objectives in the region to be affected have been exceeded and other biological consider- ations indicate the use of these management tools would not result in the impairment of wolf vi- ability in the region.” The status allows fl exibility in funding sources, including federal Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration grants, and fees from the sale of hunting licenses, according to ODFW. The Plan goes on to state, “These scenarios are designed as manage- ment response mechanisms should the condition arise where continued growth of a healthy wolf population has proven to impose unac- ceptable levels of confl ict with livestock and/or wild ungulate populations. The use of these manage- ment tools is designed to respond to the interests of hunters and trappers, as well as the interests of protecting livestock and healthy levels of wild ungulate populations.” Subscriptions make great gifts! If you’re a current subscriber and you take out a gift subscription for someone else, we’ll add a month to your own subscription! In order for the gray wolf to become delisted under the Oregon ESA, the Com- mission determined that: “The species is not now (and is not likely in the foreseeable future to be) in danger of extinction in any signiﬁ cant portion of its range in Oregon or in danger of becoming endan- gered; and “The species’ natural re- productive potential is not in danger of failure due to limited populations num- bers, disease, predation, or other natural or human- related factors affecting its continued existence; and “Most populations are not undergoing imminent or active deterioration of range or primary habitat; and “Over-utilization of the species or its habitat for commercial, recreational, scientiﬁ c, or educational purposes is not occurring or likely to occur; and “Existing state or federal programs or regulations are adequate to protect the species and its habitat.” The decision to delist changed the ESA status of the gray wolf, but, accord- ing to ODFW, “… it has no other immediate effect on wolf management in Oregon. Wolves are still protected by the Wolf Plan and its associated rules. Any take of wolves is highly regulated in Oregon and the delisting does not mean additional take is now allowed. Hunt- ers and trappers may not take wolves in Oregon at this time. The Wolf Plan does not allow for gen- eral season sport hunting of wolves in any phase of wolf management… In Phase 3 when wolves are delisted (now accom- plished), controlled take of wolves by special permit in certain areas could be allowed with Commission approval in situations of chronic livestock dep- redation or wolf-related declines of prey popula- tions.” While I don’t condone violations of the law Witty is alleged to have made, the fact that we’re talk- ing about at a 25-year-old who was not a poacher, but rather, a coyote hunter who made a mistake and made the incredibly difﬁ cult moral decision to turn himself in coupled with the decision by the Fish and Wildlife Commission to delist the gray wolf a month after that, a decision that was long overdue, I do believe that nobody truly “wins” with convictions in this case. I personally know neither Witty, nor his family, and, as far as my opinion is concerned, it wouldn’t matter if he lived in Oregon City, as opposed to Baker City. Nor would I defend him solely because he‘s a hunter. But, punishing Witty for the unwilling inheritance of a controversial, experi- mental species from Idaho, which plagued northeast- ern Oregon from the start, makes little sense… Riana Scott (13) and former Baker City resident Kristal Jensen (14), both swimming for La Grande Swim Club, attended the Boise Y Holiday Invitational Swim meet on December 11-13. This prelim/ﬁ nal meet required qualifying times to enter. There were over 230 athletes representing teams from Oregon, Idaho, Montana and Utah. Jensen entered the 13-14 events. Scott competed in the Open events. Both girls posted several personal best times at this competitive meet. The following are their results: Kristal Jensen Girls 13-14 50 Yard Free 22nd Girls 13-14 100 Yard Free 21st Girls 13-14 200 Yard Free 14th Girls 13-14 500 Yard Free 17th Girls 13-14 100 Yard Breast 11th Girls 13-14 200 Yard Breast 10th Girls 13-14-1650 Yard Free 10th Riana Scott Girls 50 Yard Free 10th Girls 100 Yard Free 5th Girls 200 Yard Free 7th Girls 200 Yard Back 6th Girls 100 Yard Breast 3rd Girls 200 Yard Breast 1st Girls 400 Yard IM 2nd Jared Miller (16) attended the Oregon Senior Open Swim Meet in Corvallis on December 4-6. This was a highly competitive, prelim/ﬁ nal meet requiring qualifying times to enter. The following are his results: Men Open 100 scy Freestyle Finals 15th Men Open 200 scy Medley Finals 6th Men Open 200 scy Backstroke Finals 3rd Men Open 200 scy Freestyle Finals 15th Men Open 100 scy Backstroke Finals 5th Men Open 500 scy Freestyle Finals 12th Restoration help available Forestry Restoration. Owners of private forestland that was damaged by natural disasters may be eligible for assistance with restoration efforts. The Emergency Forest Restoration Program has national funding available to assist owners of nonindustrial private forestland, said Trent Luschen, County Executive Director for the Farm Service Agency (FSA). “This program helps restore private forestland from the damage caused by fl oods and other disasters,” Luschen said. “Restoration of these lands helps promote local economies and protects natural resources and wildlife habitats.” Forest-owners can use the money to implement restora- tion practices. These practices could include removal of unusable materials, replanting of cover, erosion or water quality control. Eligible land must have had existing tree cover and be owned by a nonindustrial private individual or groups. Tribal land is also eligible. The disaster must impair or endanger the natural resources present or materially af- fect future land uses. This could include forest material clogging streams, wood blocking roads, loss of forest material or destruction of the forestland. “This program is a ﬁ rst for woodland owners, helping them improve and maintain the health of privately held forest lands,” Luschen said. FSA county committees determine land qualiﬁ cation based on on-site damage inspections, taking into account the type and extent of damage. Signup are November 15 through January 15. To set up an appointment call 541-523-7121 ext. 2. For application and eligibility information for this emergency restoration program, applicable landowners should visit the FSA county ofﬁ ce or www.fsa.usda.gov/conservation. Fence Repair. Baker and Grant County have seen several ﬁ res that were started by lightning and damaged permanent fenc- ing on private, BLM and US Forest Service allotments. Private landowners and permittees in these affected areas may be eligible for assistance under the Emergency Conservation Program (ECP) administered by the Baker- Grant County Farm Service Agency Ofﬁ ce if the damage: - will be so costly to rehabilitate that Federal assistance is or will be needed to return the land to productive agri- cultural use - is unusual and is not the type that would recur fre- quently in the same area - affects the productive capacity of the farmland - will impair or endanger the land Restoring permanent fences is the only practice that may be eligible. A producer qualifying for ECP assistance may receive cost shares not to exceed 75 percent of the cost of all eligible expenses of restoration measures. In addition, cost sharing may be adjusted based on the age of the fence per the following: No producer is eligible to receive more than $200,000 cost shares for this natural disaster occurrence. To be eligible for assistance, practices must not be started until all of the following are met: - An application for cost-share assistance has been ﬁ led - The local FSA County Committee (COC) or its representative has conducted an onsite inspection of the damaged area - The FSA has made a needs determination Producers who have suffered a loss from this natural disaster may contact the Baker-Grant County FSA Ofﬁ ce @ 541-523-7121, extension 2 and request assistance from November 15 to January 15, 2016.