Our Klamath Basin Water Crisis
Upholding rural Americans' rights to grow food,
own property, and caretake our wildlife and natural resources.
Our Klamath Basin
Water Crisis
Upholding rural Americans' rights to grow food,
own property, and caretake our wildlife and natural resources.
|
Oregon
Cattlemen's Association, Oregon Grange and the
Oregon Women for Agriculture
were all excluded from Wolf Bill HB 3478
negotiations, 5/28/05 CALL By June 1 !!! see bottom of pg. The following words were at the beginning of an email sent out by the Oregon Farm Bureau's Katie Fast concerning a wolf bill in which the Oregon Cattlemen's Association vigorously disagree with the Farm Bureau. "Updates on Wolf Bill (HB 3478) After five days of negotiations between Oregon Farm Bureau, Oregon Sheep Growers, Oregon Hunters, Hells Canyon Preservation, Defenders of Wildlife and ODFW, amendments to the wolf bill were agreed upon that most parties wanting a wolf bill would support." Notice that the Oregon Cattlemen's Association, the Oregon Grange and the Oregon Women for Agriculture (all groups opposing the wolf plan, rules and HB 3478 - as written) were not invited to be a part of the "five days of negotiation" among agriculture, hunters and wolf activists. Neither the Farm Bureau nor Sheep Growers lobbyists notified any of us about the negotiations prior to their meeting, and they still have not notified us about the outcome. I learn of the outcome from Craig Ely of the ODFW. We were told that the working group did not wish to have the Oregon Cattlemen at the negotiations because we "opposed the wolf plan." In other words the Defenders of Wildlife & the Hells Canyon Preservationist joined with the Farm Bureau, Sheep Growers and Oregon Hunters to make sure the Oregon Cattlemen, Grange and OWA's opinions were not considered when they were "agreeing" to the new wording (amendments) to the wolf bill HB 3478. If one examines the amendments closely, I can understand why they did not want us at their meeting. The words within their amendments are NOT FRIENDLY to livestock producers, but obviously Farm Bureau and Sheep Growers have been duped into believing they really got something...."NOT"!!! Let me give you some examples - first a simple one: 1) The Oregon Cattlemen objected to the language on Page 5, line 19 of the wolf bill referring to compensation for livestock losses on private land or "on public land under a legal grazing right." We didn't believe that ODFW needed to get involved with interpreting what is a "legal grazing right" and what is not, plus this would simply open the door for the DOW and the Hells Canyon Preservationist to scrutinize grazing management plans and grazing allotments - bad deal. The Farm Bureau group deleted "on public land under a legal grazing right" and replaced it with "legally grazing on public lands." Big deal - this means the same damned thing, nothing changed. The Farm Bureau, sheep and hunters fail to recognize that the DOW folks have sharp wordsmithing lawyers working for them. 2) "BIGGER DEAL" - The Farm Bureau Group is attempting to play this new amendment as the really important new language that allows livestock producers to kill wolves to defend their livestock.....once again NOT so!!! Here is their new language allowing "take of a gray wolf caught in the act of attacking livestock or working dogs if; (1) The person is the landowner or lawful occupant or if the person has, in the person's possession, written authority from the landowner or lawful occupant of the land that complies with subsection (4) of this section. (3) The incident is reported to ODFW within 24 hours; (5) the scene of the take is not disturbed and is preserved; (6) no evidence of wolf baiting or other intentional act to attract and kill a gray wolf is present, which does not include the mere existence or presence of livestock." Notice the "take" (shooting of the wolf) has to occur while the wolf was "caught in the act of attacking" and as the Fish and Wildlife rules already state, this means "not testing or scavenging" and there must be "visible wounds and tracks demonstrating a chase occurred." This means a rancher must prove that the take was done while the wolf was "caught in the act [I don't know what "caught" means, but this is a new word into this section of the law] of attacking." The mere fact that wolves are harassing, chasing, testing, scaring the hell out of cattle to the point that [as with a documented case that a mother cow actually had her lungs burst and filled with blood until she drowned in her own blood while try to keep wolves away from her baby calf] they stress out until they die - none of these act would justify a rancher defending his/her livestock. Only the act of attacking and with the evidence of wounds. Once the kill of livestock is made, the wolf is merely "scavenging" and the rancher has no right to kill it, even if it was seen attacking moments before. How ridiculous!!! The wolf must be "caught" in the act, and at that precise moment and if you can prove it later (video) you can kill the wolf. Notice that the rancher must have "in the person's possession, a written authority from the landowner..." This means if a wolf is casing your cattle through your fence onto you neighbors land before it makes its "attack" - unless the rancher has "written authority" in his/her pocket they cannot kill the wolf attacking the cattle. This is almost laughable it is so stupid, but these folks are serious. How people representing livestock producers (supposedly) can go along with this crap is unreal!!! The scene of the "take" can "not be disturbed and preserved" - but as I pointed out in my testimony, what happens if another animal moves the dead wolf? What if other animals wipe out the wolf tracks? What does "wolf baiting" mean? No one knows - no definition, so it could mean pretty much what ever DOW want. 3) The Farm Bureau bunch still want the wolf to be considered a "game mammal" which means the ODFW can stop all "takes" under the game mammal statutes. 4) The Farm Bureau and friends state that they removed the "special status classification for the gray wolf" - which is true, however they replaced it with "the Commission shall establish special management regulations for the gray wolf." Daaaah! This makes it even worse than before. Instead of the commission "may establish" it now says "shall establish." I asked Craig Ely from ODFW & who was at this secret meeting without Cattlemen, Grange and Women for Ag., what was the discussion around this amendment? He said there was NONE! I cannot believe this! Absolutely unbelievable!!! 5) The strange coalition also claim they did something great by putting in the words "To avoid imminent or grave injury to themselves or another person may lethally take a gray wolf in defense of human life pursuant to ORS 161.200." This is another Daaah! simply because it only points out what is already in Oregon Law - which, by the way is not all that clear as to when one can legally defend one's self or others against wolf attacks. 6) This unusual coalition, including Farm Bureau and Sheep claim they helped out with an amendment to the "compensation for subsequent losses" section raised by the OCA. It now says "after the initial losses of livestock caused by wolves it shall be the responsibility of both the department and the owner or lessee to jointly design and implement a mutually agreeable plan of non-lethal methods to mitigate against future losses of livestock or working dogs." So instead of stating that the commission "may" reduce compensation, it now states the rancher "shall" design a plan of non-lethal methods to mitigate against future losses, and the ODFW must agree to the plan. If Farm Bureau and Sheep people believe they are helping livestock producers with this goofy-assed amendments - please stop them, their help is killing producers not helping one bit. 7) The Farm Bureau and friend coalition also added the words "Pro-Active Trust" to the "Wolf Management Compensation Fund." Why did this happen? Again there was no discussion as to why this happen? Once again remember the lawyer who work for the wolf proponents - the pro-active wolf promoters, who want the fund to be called not only "wolf management compensation" fund but now the "pro-active trust" - so it is even more clear than before, any money appropriated by the legislature with the idea that it might be used for compensating livestock producers for livestock losses due to wolf predation - IT AIN"T GOING TO HAPPEN!!! All of the funds will be controlled by the commission and the DOW et. al. to manage livestock and for "pro-wolf" activities, make no mistake about this. I realize this is a long email, and if you made it this far congratulations! But words are extremely important when they become the LAW! The law will control the lives of ranchers when the wolves come to their door. The wolves will not becoming first to the doors of the lobbyist who spent "five days negotiating" without cattlemen, Grange or the Oregon Women for Ag - all of which have been involved with the wolf plan, rules and legislation from the beginning. Please try to understand the importance of this wolf bill, the words and their meaning and then let the members of the House Ag Committee know how you feel before next Wednesday. Here are their phone numbers and emails. Call me if you want more details. WE MUST KILL THIS BILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! House Ag Committee members Patti Smith, Chair Phone: (503) 986-1452 Fax: (503) 986-1997 rep.pattismith@state.or.us Brian Boquist, V-Chair Phone: (503) 986-1423 Fax: (503) 986-1568 rep.brianboquist@state.or.us Arnie Roblan, V- Chair Phone: (503) 986-1409 Fax: (503) 986-1130 rep.arnieroblan@state.or.us E. Terry Beyer Phone: (503) 986-1412 Fax: (503) 986-1541 rep.terrybeyer@state.or.us Chuck Burley Phone: (503) 986-1454 Fax: (503) 986-1561 rep.chuckburley@state.or.us Mark Hass Phone: (503) 986-1427 Fax: (503) 986-1130 rep.markhass@state.or.us Mac Sumner Phone: (503) 986-1418 Fax: (503) 986-1561 rep.macsumner@state.or.us
|
Home
Page Updated: Thursday May 07, 2009 09:15 AM Pacific
Copyright © klamathbasincrisis.org, 2005, All Rights Reserved