Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About The Blue Mountain eagle. (John Day, Or.) 1972-current | View Entire Issue (Feb. 16, 2022)
MyEagleNews.com STATE Environmental groups oppose $1M wolf compensation bill By MATEUSZ PERKOWSKI Capital Press SALEM 4 Environmental groups oppose providing Oregon ranchers with an additional $1 million in com- pensation for wolf problems, arguing the bill sends a bad message about the predators. Supporters of House Bill 4127 counter that as wolves spread across the state, it9s necessary to devote more money to pay ranchers for lost live- stock and for preventive measures. <We need to ensure this fund doesn9t go dry,= said Rep. Bobby Levy, R-Echo, referring to the Wolf Management Compensation and Pro- active Trust Fund created in 2011. <We have over twice as many con- ¿UPHG GHSUHGDWLRQV DV ZH VDZ LQ 2020,= Levy said, noting that wolves killed 41 cows, 23 sheep, 9 goats and a guard dog last year. Based on previous levels of com- pensation, that means ranchers would need more than $750,000 in compen- VDWLRQIRUODVW\HDU¶VFRQ¿UPHGORVVHV she said. For the current biennium, Oregon has $400,000 per year in federal and state money authorized for wolf com- pensation, said Jonathan Sandau, spe- cial assistant to the director at the Ore- gon Department of Agriculture. On average over the past three years, the wolf compensation fund has annually received $425,000 in requests and paid out $185,000, Sandau said. At least 30% of the funds must be dedicated to prevention, but usually that proportion is much higher, hov- ering at about 70% per year, he said. Coalitions of environmental non- SUR¿W JURXSV KDYH FRPH RXW DJDLQVW HB 4127, saying it will provide funds for missing livestock not necessarily killed by wolves. The Oregon Conservation Net- work, a coalition of 30 organizations, opposes <throwing more money at missing livestock,= partly because it ZLOO FRQÀDWH ZD\ZDUG DQLPDOV ZLWK wolf depredations, said Julie McGraw, the network9s representative at a recent House Agriculture, Land Use and Water Committee hearing. <The more it appears that wolves are killing livestock, the worse it is going to be in terms of the quality of the relationship with people trying to raise livestock,= she said. The number of livestock that have allegedly gone missing due to wolves IDUVXUSDVVHVWKHQXPEHURIFRQ¿UPHG depredations, said Julie Moser, wildlife program coordinator for the Oregon :LOGQRQSUR¿W Meanwhile, livestock go missing for any number of reasons, so those FODLPVIRUFRPSHQVDWLRQDUHQ¶WYHUL¿ able, Moser said. <Blaming wolves for any unac- FRXQWHGOLYHVWRFNQRWRQO\VXSHU¿FLDOO\ LQÀDWHV ZROIOLYHVWRFN FRQÀLFW EXW LW perpetuates a problematic stigma about wolves,= she said. Critics of the bill also argued the wolf compensation fund is prone to misuse and should be reformed, while adding more money to it will create a <moral hazard= by encouraging ranch- ers not to look for missing animals. <Making the fund easier to abuse is not a solution,= said Bethany Cotton, conservation director for the Cascadia :LOGODQGVQRQSUR¿W The bill9s supporters pointed out that despite the critics9 focus on miss- ing livestock, the added funding would go to the wolf compensation program as a whole. <There9s a lot of conjecture on this, but there are really no facts,= said Rep. David Brock-Smith, R-Port Orford. With wolf depredations reaching a record level in 2021, it9s worth ade- quately funding the wolf compensation program to encourage acceptance of state policies for the species, said Rep. Mark Owens, R-Crane. <It9s a trend that9s starting to possi- bly erode the social tolerance we started to develop with the wolf management plan,= Owens said of rising depreda- tions. <Nothing in this bill changes the wolf management plan. Nothing in this bill harms wolves. In fact, this bill is there to support that social tolerance of wolf interactions with our public.= Wolves cause problems for the live- stock industry that go beyond dep- redations, such as lower conception rates and weight loss, said Todd Nash, president of the Oregon Cattlemen9s Association and a Wallowa County commissioner. <If we paid for the missing live- VWRFNDQGWKHFRQ¿UPHGGHSUHGDWLRQV it wouldn9t come close to capturing the cost incurred by ranchers,= Nash said. <If there9s going to be fraud in the sys- tem, the fraud is that we have a com- pensation system and there are not funds available.= Wednesday, February 16, 2022 A7 Oregon ranchers decry wolf ruling By GEORGE PLAVEN Capital Press SALEM 4 A federal judge9s decision to renew endangered spe- cies protections for some gray wolves in the Lower 48 states is drawing criticism from Oregon ranchers who say they feel defense- less to protect their livestock from chronic attacks. Environmental groups sued the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and former Interior Secretary David Bernhardt after the Trump admin- istration removed wolves from the endangered species list in 2020, arguing the delisting was premature. 86'LVWULFW-XGJH-H൵UH\:KLWH UXOHG LQ IDYRU RI WKH SODLQWL൵V RQ Feb. 10. <Restoring federal protections means that these vitally import- ant animals will receive the neces- sary support to recover and thrive in the years ahead,= said Jamie Rap- paport Clark, president and CEO of Defenders of Wildlife, one of six JURXSVWKDW¿OHGWKHODZVXLW Oregon9s minimum wolf popu- lation was 173 at the end of 2020. An updated estimate from the state Department of Fish & Wildlife is expected later this spring. The Oregon Cattlemen9s Asso- ciation, which represents ranch- ers statewide, released a statement blasting the ruling. OCA President Todd Nash said that while environmental groups such as Defenders of Wildlife and the Center for Biological Diversity have seats at the table for develop- ing Oregon9s Wolf Conservation and Management Plan, <they are QHYHU VDWLV¿HG ZLWK WKH EURNHUHG compromises.= Gray wolves were reintroduced in Central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park in the mid-1990s, and since then the species has expanded both in population and geographical area beyond expecta- tions, Nash said. <This decision to re-list beyond that experimental area builds mis- trust in our legal system and com- promises the integrity of the Endangered Species Act,= Nash said. The ruling does not cover wolves in Eastern Oregon, where the majority of packs are. State ZLOGOLIH R൶ FLDOV ZLOO FRQWLQXH WR manage wolves east of highways ODFW Wolves caught by an Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife trail camera. 395, 78 and 95. Wolves in the western two- thirds of Oregon, however, will be returned to the federal ESA 4 including the Rogue pack, which was responsible for more than half RI DOO FRQ¿UPHG ZROI DWWDFNV RQ livestock in 2020. Veril Nelson, a cattle rancher in Oakland and co-chair of the OCA Wolf Committee, said producers are frustrated by the about-face in wolf management. <The bottom line is, we9re hung out to dry,= Nelson said. <Our options are very few.= Upon delisting, wolves in West- ern Oregon were placed under Phase I of the state wolf plan, which allows for killing wolves in defense of livestock in limited circumstances. Wolves could be killed if caught in the act of chasing or biting live- stock, or if a pack incurred four <qualifying= depredations in a six- month period. To qualify, ranchers must be using some kind of non-le- thal deterrents 4 such as range rid- ers 4 and remove all carcasses or bone piles that might attract wolves. With federal protections back in place, those options are now R൵ WKH WDEOH 1HOVRQ VDLG DGGLQJ that non-lethal tools are not 100% H൵HFWLYHDQGFRVWO\WRPDLQWDLQ <How many range riders do you need to cover 40,000 acres? It9s not doable,= he said. <You can be out there and do the best you can, but all of those things cost money.= OCA is supporting House Bill 4127 in the Legislature that would provide an additional $1 million for the state9s wolf compensation fund to reimburse ranchers for dead and missing livestock, as well as non-lethal prevention. A public hearing for the bill was held Feb. 9. Jonathan Sandau, a special assistant to the director at the Ore- gon Department of Agriculture, said the wolf compensation fund has annually received on average $425,000 in requests from ranchers, while paying out just $185,000. Critics argued the wolf compen- sation fund is prone to misuse, and increasing funding may encourage ranchers not to look for missing ani- mals but instead default to blaming wolves GOT INVASIVE ANNUAL GRASSES? Grant SWCD Weed Control Dept. Working for You in 2022 |anks to the Grant County Court and Northeast Oregon Forests Resource Advisory Committee, Grant Weed Control is able to oûer a 25% Cost share program for Invasive Annual Grass Control on Private Grazing Lands, through a Title II funded Grant Project. |is program will provide a maximum $10,000 of invasive annual grass control services with a $2,500 maximum landowner contribution to qualifying participants. To be eligible for participation, the treatment property must not be actively irrigated and must be primarily managed for livestock grazing, minimum of 20 acres in size, located within Grant County, and must contain invasive annual grass species. Applications for this limited weed control assistance opportunity will be ranked and funded on a ûrst come ûrst serve basis. Contact: Grant Soil and Water Conservation District Office at (541) 575-1554 or visit 721 S. Canyon Blvd., John Day, OR 97845 for applications and additional information. |e application deadline for this program is March 11th, 2022. S280965-1