Time to Take Action
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

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

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
Chuck Burley                    Phone:  (503) 986-1454  Fax:  (503) 986-1561
Mark Hass                       Phone:  (503) 986-1427  Fax:  (503) 986-1130
Mac Sumner                      Phone:  (503) 986-1418  Fax:  (503) 986-1561






Page Updated: Thursday May 07, 2009 09:15 AM  Pacific

Copyright klamathbasincrisis.org, 2005, All Rights Reserved