Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Wallowa County chieftain. (Enterprise, Wallowa County, Or.) 1943-current | View Entire Issue (March 1, 2017)
Wallowa County Chieftain wallowa.com News March 1, 2017 A7 Capital Bureau file photo Proposed legislation would create Independent Science Review Board to study controversial issues. Natural resources groups, while commending SB 198’s noble aim, are nonetheless skeptical of how the review process would play out in reality. Playground build soon Volunteers from across the county will have the op- portunity to come together in a positive community ex- perience. The build of the much-anticipated Joseph City Playground begins April 25 and continues through April 30, culminating with an opening ceremony at 5 p.m. That ceremony will be an all-ages party, with children exploring the playground and all celebrating with food, drink and music. More than 500 volunteers are needed for this six-day project. No construction ex- perience is required. The Play By Design team will oversee the entire build. Materials, tools, meals and childcare will all be provided to volunteers. The project’s origins hap- pened two years ago. In Lau- rie Altringer’s community service class at Joseph Char- ter School, students Steven Beckman, T. J. Grote, Tyler Homan, Kade Kilgore and Trey Wandschneider deter- mined that a new playground was needed. They believed the play- ground would provide chil- dren countywide with a hap- py and healthy place to play. They also asserted that the project could unite the com- munity. City Council agreed and very quickly the seeds these fi ve young men planted grew into a steering committee of over a dozen students and adults who have worked diligently to see the project brought to life. They soon won the sup- port of organizations such as: The Oregon Parks & Recre- ation Dept. Local Govern- ment Grant Program, Wild- horse Foundation, Cycle Oregon, Oregon Community Foundation, and Northwest Farm Credit Services. The 6,500 square foot playground, designed by Play by Design, will provide chil- dren of all ages and abilities with a place for active, cre- ative play in a natural setting. Based on input from com- munity members as young as six, the play area will include a variety of swings, slides, playhouses and a bouldering fi eld and splash pad for hot summer days. Each day of the building event will have three con- struction shifts – 8-noon, 12:3-4:30 p.m. and 5-8:30 p.m. Learn more about the project and sign up for a vol- unteer shift by visiting jo- sephplayground.org. Ranchers oppose cuts to wolf compensation Budget proposals for ODA curtail predator programs By Mateusz Perkowski Capital Bureau SALEM — Ranchers who suffer livestock losses from predators stand to lose state support under both budget scenarios currently proposed for the Oregon Department of Agriculture. Funding aimed at predator control and compensation for livestock depredation would be cut under recommenda- tions from Gov. Kate Brown as well as the co-chairs of the Joint Ways and Means Com- mittee, Sen. Richard Devlin, D-Tualatin, and Rep. Nancy Nathanson, D-Eugene. The proposed cuts drew objections from the live- stock industry during a Feb. 22 hearing on ODA’s budget before a panel of Joint Ways and Means Committee mem- bers focused on natural re- sources. As the wolf population has grown in Oregon, live- stock losses have been a continuing source of frustra- tion for ranchers, said Mike Durgan of the Baker County Wolf Compensation Advisory Committee. Even when wolves don’t kill cattle, they cause health problems that are considered indirect losses and aren’t compensated with state dol- lars, Durgan said. Until wildlife offi cials fi nd a better way to manage the predators, the livestock industry should receive state assistance, he said. “I want to make it clear I’m not advocat- ing killing wolves today.” Oregon counties have steadfastly contributed mon- ey to their partnership with ODA and USDA’s Wildlife Services division to pay for predator control, even as they’ve fallen short of funds for public safety and other vi- tal services, said Craig Pope, a Polk County commissioner. “We will have no one else to call if we let this partner- ship fail,” Pope said. “Coun- ties cannot make up the dif- ference of this funding hole.” The Oregon Hunters As- sociation and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation testifi ed in favor or restoring Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Two adult wolves from the Walla Walla Pack were caught on remote trail camera Jan. 16, 2016 in northern Umatilla County, Ore. Oregon legislators are considering reductions in funding for predator control and reimbursing ranchers for livestock losses. the state’s full contribution to the predator control program, which they say is necessary to maintain a balance between predators and deer and elk. Under Gov. Kate Brown’s recommended 2017-2019 budget, the ODA would elim- inate $460,000 in state fund- ing for the USDA’s Wildlife Services division, which kills problematic predators. An ODA program that compensates ranchers for wolf depredation would be funded at $211,000 under the governor’s proposal, compared to $233,000 in the 2015-2017 biennium. The co-chairs of the Joint Ways and Means Committee, meanwhile, have proposed a “budget framework” for the upcoming biennium that would decrease funding for the wolf compensation pro- gram “and/or reduce funding for predator control.” While the co-chairs’ bud- get framework doesn’t spec- ify the exact reductions for ODA programs, it does pro- pose cutting state funding for all natural resource agencies to $405 million, down from $413.6 million during the previous biennium. Rep. Lew Frederick, D-Portland, said he’s con- cerned about livestock losses and supports continued assis- tance from the state but raised concerns about possible hunt- ing of wolves. While wolves aren’t cur- rently hunted in Oregon, controlled hunts could be allowed during a later phase of wolf recovery under the state’s management plan for the species. Frederick cautioned against the display of “tro- phy” wolves killed by hunt- ers, which he said would erode public support for the predator control and wolf compensation programs. “That’s a political situ- ation that will shut down a great deal,” he said. Aside from predator con- trol, other ODA programs are on the chopping block under the proposals from Brown and the co-chairs of the Joint Ways & Means Committee. A coalition of natural re- source industry groups — including the Oregon Farm Bureau, Oregon Association of Nurseries, Oregon Cattle- men’s Association and others — urged lawmakers not to curtail those programs. For example, the co- chairs’ budget framework recommends decreasing the number of positions in ODA’s agricultural water quality program and shifting food safety and pesticide programs from the general fund to pro- gram fees. Industry representatives fear such shifts will effective- ly increase fees on farmers, ranchers and others. Under Brown’s budget proposal, about $250,000 in general fund dollars would be cut from ODA’s inspection program for “confi ned animal feeding operations,” shifting the burden onto fee payers. A biocontrol program for controlling invasive weeds would also be eliminated, saving $250,000. Don Farrar, Gilliam Coun- ty’s weed offi cer, argued against the proposal because biological control with pred- atory insects can effectively suppress large infestations of weeds. “This program has been one of the best in the nation and it would be sad to lose that,” he said. Genna Rue McHatton was born February 19, 2017 in Enterprise to Amanda McHatton of Joseph. 301 W. Main, Enterprise • 541.426.3177 By Mateusz Perkowski Capital Bureau SALEM — A bill before Oregon lawmakers has raised a philosophical question: Is it possible to achieve an unbi- ased scientifi c opinion? Or more precisely, is a politically appointed scientif- ic panel capable of reaching such an impartial truth? Legislators recently pon- dered this problem while deliberating Senate Bill 198, which would create an In- dependent Science Review Board to ponder some of the thornier controversies facing state regulators. Oregon’s farmers and ranchers are no strangers to science-related disputes over wolves, pesticides and ge- netically engineered crops, among others. Natural resources groups, while commending SB 198’s noble aim, are nonetheless skeptical of how the review process would play out in re- ality. State agencies that make “high impact” decisions af- fecting natural resource in- dustries are already overseen by boards and commissions, said Mike Freese, vice pres- ident of Associated Oregon Industries, who testifi ed at a Feb. 22 hearing before the Senate Environment and Nat- ural Resources Committee. “Simply having the same debate in front of a new board doesn’t make a lot of sense to me,” said Freese, who testifi ed on behalf of AOI and other groups, including the Oregon Farm Bureau, Oregon Forest Industries Council and Oregon Dairy Farmers Association. Under SB 198, the Inde- pendent Scientifi c Review Board would be appointed by Oregon’s governor, just like the commissions overseeing state agencies. The governor would also hire an admin- istrator for an Oregon State University “secretariat” to assist the board with its work. The current version of the legislation doesn’t adequately ensure the Independent Sci- ence Review Board would be free of political infl uence, Freese said. As a result, the new panel would become another venue for advocacy groups to seek a stamp of approval for their policy positions in “age-old debates,” he said. Natural resources indus- tries are concerned about perceived biases not only in panel’s conclusions, but also in the type of questions that it decides to pursue, Freese said. Sen. Alan Olsen, R-Canby, said he hopes the Independent Science Review Board would provide clear, transparent in- formation to help lawmakers make decisions involving multiple agencies or scientifi c disciplines. Lawmakers would ideally present scientifi c questions for the panel a year before the pertinent legislation is intro- duced, he said. It’s currently diffi cult for legislators to decide whose experts to listen to, said Sen. Herman Baertschiger, R-Grants Pass. “We’ve got peer reviewed science on both sides.” Sen. Arnie Roblan, D-Co- os Bay, said he’s “seen belief trump science repeatedly” in the Legislature and noted that advocates often bring in their own scientists to discount op- posing views. “It puts the panel right in the middle of the most con- tentious issues we have in the state,” Roblan said. The current language of SB 198 has raised some con- cerns among task force mem- bers who recommended the Independent Science Review Board’s creation. While the task force gen- erally supports the bill, the administrator overseeing the panel’s “secretariat” would be more insulated from po- litical infl uence if appointed directly by panel members, rather than the governor, said Dan Edge, associate dean of OSU’s College of Agricultur- al Science. The task force is also trou- bled by the possibility that SB 198 would allow the Indepen- dent Science Review Board to be funded with grants and donations, said Edge. It’d be preferable for the panel’s money to come from the state general fund, to avoid the perception that large donors can steer the re- view process, he said. “We’re very concerned we might end up in a ‘pay to play’ situation,” Edge said. Roblan said he’d “love to spend money on science,” but that realistically, state spending on existing natural resource programs is already constrained. Love your bank. Births A daughter, Natural resource groups skeptical of science review panel proposal Term Loans Lines of Credit Ag & Commercial Real Estate Enterprise Branch beobank.com Member FDIC