PORTLAND (AP) — Wolves were once so plentiful in the abundant forests that would become Oregon that the earliest settlers gathered from far and wide to discuss how to kill them.

Those “wolf meetings” in the 1840s, spawned by a common interest, eventually led to the formation of the Oregon territory, the precursor for statehood in 1859.

Today, Oregon’s statehood is secure, but the future of its wolf population once more hangs in the balance. Wolves have returned after decades, and this time, humans are having a much more contentious discussion about what to do with them.

It’s a political debate playing out against the backdrop of a rapidly growing wolf population, a jump in wolf poaching and demands from ranchers and hunters who say the predators are decimating herds and spooking big game.

The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission will vote in January on whether to revise the state’s wolf management plan, which could eventually open the door for a wolf hunt for the first time since bounty hunting wiped out wolves in the state 70 years ago. Idaho, which has a much larger population of the animals, allows wolf hunting.

Conservationists worry the plan will erode recent progress, particularly given a rash of unsolved poaching cases and an uptick in state-sanctioned wolf killings in response to wolf attacks on livestock. They are adamantly opposed to wolf hunting and say the population is a long way from supporting it.

The species lost its endangered status under Oregon law two years ago — when the population hit 81 wolves — and is no longer federally protected in the eastern third of the state. Wolves, which were wiped out in the continental U.S. in all but a slice of Minnesota, also are rebounding in other Western states, prompting similar debates about human co-existence.

Oregon wildlife officials have killed or authorized the killing of 14 wolves since 2009, including 10 in the past two years, and 12 more have been poached, including eight since 2015, according to state wildlife officials.

“When we had zero wolves 10 years ago, and now when we have 112 wolves, that’s certainly a success story — but we’re not done,” said Rob Klavins, a field representative with Oregon Wild, a conservation organization. “Can you imagine if there were only 81 known elk in the state of Oregon, or if there were 81 salmon? We wouldn’t think of delisting them.”

Early explorers noted wolves were “exceedingly numerous” in what would become Oregon, and the so-called wolf meetings that led to the region’s first civic government established a bounty for wolves in 1843 that paid $3 per hide. The state later took over the bounty and offered $20 per wolf in 1913 — the equivalent of nearly $500 today.

The last bounty payment was recorded in 1947, and the wolf vanished from Oregon for decades.

In the mid-1990s, wolves were reintroduced to central Idaho, and in 1999, a lone wolf wandered into northeastern Oregon. It was trapped and returned to Idaho.

Two more were found dead in Oregon in 2000. But the first definitive proof wolves had returned to the state came in 2007, when a wolf was found shot to death. The following year, a wolf nicknamed Sophie by conservationists gave birth to the first litter of pups born in Oregon in decades.

Last year, state biologists counted 112 wolves in the northeastern and southwestern corners of the state — and they believe that is an undercount.

Wolf conflicts with ranchers have risen and, for the first time, an elk hunter this month reported killing a wolf in self-defense.

That wolf was previously unknown to biologists, and the case has become a flashpoint in the fight over wolves. A local prosecutor declined to press charges, prompting 18 conservation groups to petition Gov. Kate Brown to intervene without success.

Ranchers who run cattle and sheep in northeastern Oregon also believe there are more wolves than officially documented - and say they are paying the price.

Wallowa County rancher Todd Nash, head of the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association’s wolf committee, estimates he’s lost $50,000 in dead calves and in herds that are underweight from being too spooked to graze properly.

The state requires ranchers to prove wolves have killed two animals or killed one and attempted to kill three others before it will consider killing a wolf to protect livestock. The ranchers also must show they have tried other deterrents, such as special fencing and flashing lights.

The state killed four wolves this summer and authorized a rancher to kill one more, but Nash said it’s almost impossible to prove most cases because the wolves eat the carcasses or drag them away. Ranchers in his area are fed up because the bulk of Oregon’s wolves live in just a few remote counties where he says abundant cattle make easy prey.

Killing a few wolves “does nothing but infuriate the conservation folks, and it doesn’t serve to placate the ranchers because they know it’s not going to do any good,” Nash said.

Yet the fact that Oregonians are debating when and how to kill wolves at all is incredible given the predators didn’t exist here a decade ago, said Derek Broman, carnivore coordinator with the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife.

As the point person on the upcoming wolf management plan, he hears from dozens of competing interests on what to do with wolves.

“It wasn’t all that long ago that people were worried about wolves blinking out and there just being a handful of them,” Broman said.

“Wolves are so contentious, and there’s a lot of baggage that comes with them — but there’s also a lot of interest, which is nice.”

The fate of two housing subdivisions planned in farm zones in Oregon’s Yamhill County depends on the landowners’ “vested rights” in the unfinished projects.

The Oregon Court of Appeals was recently asked to overturn the county’s approval of the two projects, which involve building 50 homes on nearly 80 acres.

More than a decade after Oregonians voted on significant changes to state land use laws, the legal repercussions continue to be sorted out on the ground.

In 2004, voters approved Measure 37, which required governments to compensate landowners for zoning restrictions imposed after they bought their properties, or to waive those regulations.

Due to the tremendous financial cost of providing compensation, counties predominantly granted waivers to landowners, raising concerns about major conversions of farmland to housing.

The controversy led voters to approve Measure 49 in 2007, which allowed landowners with valid Measure 37 waivers to have three to 10 homes on their property, depending on a variety of conditions.

Those who wanted to develop larger housing subdivisions could only proceed if they were far enough along with the projects to have “vested rights” to complete them.

In the two Yamhill County cases, a state judge ruled that Ralph and Norma Johnson had vested rights to develop homes sites on about 40 acres and that Gordon Cook had vested rights to develop home sites on about 39 acres.

A central question in both cases is whether these landowners could sell the subdivided lots and have other people build the houses, rather than constructing the dwellings themselves.

Friends of Yamhill County, a conservation group, and other critics of the proposed housing developments argue that under the language of Measure 37, waivers of zoning restrictions were not transferable.

During oral arguments on Nov. 21 in Salem, Ore., opponents of the two projects argued that landowners are barred from selling undeveloped parcels, so the “vested rights” findings should be overturned by the Oregon Court of Appeals.

Despite legal uncertainties about Measure 37’s implications at the time, the landowners decided against building the homes themselves, said Ralph Bloemers, attorney for Friends of Yamhill County and other critics.

“They only pursued subdivision. That’s the bed they made for themselves and that has legal consequences,” Bloemers said. “In both cases, they took the risky approach of just selling lots.”

Attorneys for the landowners countered that they’d invested enough in the projects to qualify for vested rights, even if they didn’t plan to build the homes.

One of the criteria used to determine if landowners have proven to have “vested rights” is the amount of money they’d spent on development in comparison to a project’s total cost.

The Johnsons spent $1.2 million subdividing their land, which was found to be a substantial enough portion of the project’s total estimated cost of $15 million to establish vested rights, said Greg Hathaway, their attorney.

“They produced that expert testimony. The county accepted that and the court accepted that,” Hathaway said.

Legal precedents allow landowners who proceed in “good faith” to establish vested rights in a development if it’s interrupted by a change in law, even if the ultimate developer is a third party, said Chip Hudson, the attorney for Gordon Cook.

“They should be protected equitably from having that investment swept away when the law changes,” Hudson said.

Oregon’s “right to farm” law doesn’t provide aspiring marijuana growers with “blanket immunity” from a lawsuit filed by grape-producing neighbors in Yamhill County, a judge has ruled.

Yamhill County Circuit Court Judge John Collins has denied a motion to dismiss a complaint against the marijuana operation planned by Steven and Mary Wagner, and their son Richard.

A nearby vineyard owner, Momtazi Family LLC, claimed the marijuana odors would damage wine grapes with “foul-smelling particles” and sought an injunction against cultivation of the psychoactive crop.

The lawsuit was joined by Harihari and Parvathy Mahesh, neighbors who haven’t yet planted a vineyard but plan to do so.

Last month, the Wagners asked the judge to throw out the lawsuit because there was no evidence that marijuana odors would cross property lines and because the planned marijuana operation wasn’t yet definite.

“You don’t get to file a lawsuit with no facts, sheer conjecture, pure speculation about what will happen,” said Allison Bizzano, their attorney, during oral arguments on Oct. 11 in McMinnville, Ore.

Richard Brown, attorney for the plaintiffs, countered that it’s common to enjoin activities that haven’t yet occurred but that would cause damage.

“If the court allows them to develop the property first, it’s the equivalent of letting them pull the trigger,” Brown said.

Judge Collins sided with the plaintiffs on this issue, ruling that an injunctions can be a preventative remedy meant to “stay the lawless hand before it strikes the blow,” based on a legal precedent from 1914.

“While this language from an old case might be seen as somewhat arcane today, the principle remains: A party may seek injunctive relief not just to halt an ongoing harm, but also to head off that harm if the harm can reasonably be predicted to occur in the reasonably near future,” he said.

The judge also disagreed with the defendants that the case is barred by the “right to farm” law, which prohibits nuisance and trespass lawsuits against common farming practices.

A provision from that law clarifies that it doesn’t protect against lawsuits alleging “damage to commercial agricultural products.”

“Plaintiffs’ vineyard and, more specifically, grapes, certainly fall within this term and plaintiff adequately alleges damage or potential damage to that product,” Collins said.

While the “right to farm” law does not provide blanket immunity against the lawsuit, it can still be raised as an “affirmative defense to be addressed at a later stage in the case,” he said.

Blake Shelton and Gwen Stefani will spend Thanksgiving (11.23.17) with Blake's family in Oklahoma, where they will have a "huge" celebration.

https://modernfarmer.com/2017/11/cranberry-industry-wild-also-many-cranberries/

KTVZ
Oregon cranberry growers don't let competitors bog them down
KTVZ
Oregon cranberries are often blended with berries from other states to make the juice, but that market alone does not bring the state's growers a competitive price or differentiation. Finding untapped markets with value-added cranberry products appears ...

and more »

KTVZ
Oregon cranberry growers don't let competitors bog them down
KTVZ
Oregon cranberries are often blended with berries from other states to make the juice, but that market alone does not bring the state's growers a competitive price or differentiation. Finding untapped markets with value-added cranberry products appears ...

and more »

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) — Astronauts at the International Space Station will feast Thursday on pouches of Thanksgiving turkey.

The route of a 300-mile high-voltage power line has won the federal government’s approval, but some Eastern Oregon farmers hope state regulators can still alter its course.

The U.S. Bureau of Land Management has granted a right-of-way allowing Idaho Power’s transmission line to cross roughly 100 miles of federal land, but Oregon’s Energy Facility Siting Council must still sign off on its overall path.

“They picked a route but the state doesn’t have to go along with that,” said Mark Bennett, a rancher and commissioner for Oregon’s Baker County.

The transmission line between Boardman, Ore., and the Nampa, Idaho, area is expected to cost up to $1.2 billion, with construction projected to start in 2021.

About 70 miles of the transmission line would run through Baker County, with more than 80 percent of those miles located on “exclusive farm use” property, said Bennett.

“It not only affects that farming ground, it’s affecting the visual corridor as well,” Bennett said.

Farmers and ranchers in the area would prefer the transmission line to bypass Baker County by traversing an existing Central Oregon energy corridor, though that would likely add to its length, he said.

Aside from the transmission line itself, its presence is associated with road-building, weeds and other disturbances to agriculture, he said.

Irrigation wheel lines and center pivots would be disrupted by the transmission line, as would aerial pesticide applications, said Bennett.

“It affects people’s property values by putting up a power line in their viewshed,” he added.

Further to the West, in Morrow County, farmers have at least partly resolved concerns about the transmission line’s effects on agriculture.

Growers were hoping for 12 miles of the transmission line to be located on the edge of the U.S. Navy’s bombing range near Boardman, Ore., rather than on farmland.

Due to the presence of tribal cultural resources within the bombing range, however, the southernmost five miles must cross the road onto private property, said Carla McLane, Morrow County’s planning director.

“They have to balance all those impacts to have a viable project,” McLane said.

As the transmission line travels further south of the bombing range, it would first cross land used for irrigated farming and then dryland farming, she said.

Irrigated agriculture often involves growing several crops per year, so the transmission line would be more prone to interfere with those operations than dryland agriculture, McLane said.

“There’s more opportunity for conflicts,” she said.

Another issue associated with the transmission line is the planned construction near Boardman of an electrical substation, with which other power lines will eventually seek to connect, said J.R. Cook, director of the Northeast Oregon Water Association.

“You’ve set a heartbeat at that point,” he said.

The U.S. will continue to demand new energy sources, which need to connect to the electrical grid, but federal processes often push transmission lines onto private farmland, Cook said.

“These issues are going to continue to compound,” he said.

Cook said he’s doesn’t blame Idaho Power for the problem, but he is disappointed with the planning process for siting transmission lines.

The partial victory of relocating seven miles of the transmission line has cost the local community roughly $1 million in legal fees, travel and staff time, he said. “How is that a system that’s working?”

It’s been a bloody year for Oregon wolves, with at least 10 killed under circumstances ranging from authorized “lethal control” due to livestock attacks and a shooting ruled self-defense, to an unintended poisoning and unsolved poachings.

At this point, Oregon State Police have no reason to think there is a concerted action by an individual or group to illegally kill the state’s wolves.

However, the investigation into the most recent killing, a collared wolf designated OR-23, is still active, OSP spokesman Sgt. Kaipo Raiser said.

Steve Pedery, conservation director for the Portland-based group Oregon Wild, warned that a “shoot, shovel and shut up” attitude toward wolves has taken hold in rural Oregon and become part of the political fault line separating factions of Americans.

In Wallowa County, he said, it’s not unusual to see “Smoke a pack a day” bumper stickers.

Doug Cottam, ODFW’s Wildlife Division administrator, said the department is “upset and frustrated by the unlawful wolf killings in Oregon.” Rewards are offered for information leading to arrests.

“Poaching of any wildlife is wrong and harmful to their conservation,” he said in a prepared statement.

Police and ODFW believe the latest wolf was shot Nov. 12 or 13. It was found Nov. 14 in the Chesnimnus hunting area known as Cold Springs, in Northeast Oregon’s Wallowa County. Tracking collars on wolves are designed to emit a mortality signal if the animal does not move for a certain period of time, ODFW spokeswoman Michelle Dennehey said. She assumed that’s what led to finding the wolf’s carcass in this case.

State police found evidence OR-23 was killed by a gunshot, but released no other information.

The wolf was part of the Shamrock Pack. In February 2017, a male from the pack, OR-48, died after it bit or tugged on a M-44 trap set by the USDA’s Wildlife Services to kill coyotes.

In April 2017, the remains of a male wolf designated OR-33 were found about 20 miles northwest of Klamath Falls in the Fremont-Winema National Forest. A necropsy showed it had been shot.

In late October, another collared male, OR-25, was found dead near Fort Klamath in the Sun Pass State Forest. The cause of death was not disclosed.

On Oct. 27, in a case that caused an uproar on social media, an elk hunter told ODFW and OSP he’d shot an uncollared wolf in Northeast Oregon that ran at him while at least two other wolves appeared to be flanking him. The Union County district attorney reviewed the case and decided not to prosecute the hunter; state police said the hunter acted in self-defense.

Conservation groups and others say the 30.06 bullet’s trajectory — through one side and out the other — is at odds with the man’s account. Some accused the hunter of panicking, or of deliberately killing the animal and making up a story to justify it. In an interview with the Capital Press, the hunter said he believed he was in danger. When the wolf ran at him, he said he screamed, raised his rifle, saw fur in the scope and fired. A shell casing was found 27 yards from the wolf’s carcass.

In August, ODFW killed four wolves from the Harl Butte Pack after a series of attacks on cattle. In September, a livestock producer acting with authorization from ODFW shot a Meacham Pack wolf to protect his herd.

Yet another wolf, OR-42, the breeding female of the Chesnimnus Pack, was found dead in May. The cause of death was undetermined, but foul play was not suspected. Meanwhile, several wolf deaths from 2015 and 2016 remain unsolved.

Pedery, of Oregon Wild, said the conservation group is not aware of an organized effort to kill wolves. But he said the ODFW-sanctioned killing of wolves for livestock attacks helps establish an atmosphere in which poachers feel they can get away with it or are justified.

In rural Northeast Oregon, where the majority of Oregon’s wolf packs live, the situation is layered with a decade of livestock losses, the cost and worry of non-lethal deterrence and resentment over urban residents weighing in on what are considered local matters. Divisive national politics find expression in anti-wolf reactions as well, Pedery said.

Other observers point out that Oregon’s steadily increasing wolf population, and their dispersal from Northeast Oregon, means armed hunters are more likely to encounter them in the wild.

Carter Niemeyer, a retired federal wildlife biologist with extensive experience tracking, trapping and occasionally shooting wolves, said wolves are potentially dangerous but unlikely to attack humans. A shout or warning shot should scare them off, he said, and he suggested hikers carry bear repellent spray if they are worried about bears, cougars, coyotes or wolves.

Anyone with information about the most recent wolf killing is encouraged to contact Sgt. Chris Hawkins at OSP’s La Grande Patrol Office, 541-963-7175, extension 4670. People also can provide information anonymously by calling the Turn In Poachers (TIP) hotline at 1-800-452-7888.

Can there ever be too much of a good thing when it comes to homemade comfort food? If you’ve vowed to never let Aunt Jane’s mac-and-cheese go to waste, get ready to divvy up leftovers. Here are 10 items to…

Oregon cranberry growers don't let competitors bog them down  KTVZ

Growing cranberries on Oregon's south coast is a challenge – not because it can't be done or done well, but due to competition with states that have larger ...

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — A Washington state man who joined the Ammon Bundy-led takeover of an Oregon wildlife refuge sought and received leniency from a judge Tuesday after saying he’s been through “two years of hell” since his arrest in February 2016.

U.S. District Judge Anna Brown cited Darryl Thorn’s rough childhood and other factors in sentencing him to 18 months in prison — at least six months less than federal sentencing guidelines. Thorn will also get credit for time he has already served in jail.

Thorn performed armed guard duty, sometimes from a watchtower, during the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge occupation that lasted Jan. 2 to Feb. 11, 2016. The group sought the release of two ranchers imprisoned for setting fires on U.S.-owned land.

Twenty six people were indicted in the case. Most accepted plea bargains and avoided prison. Bundy and six others were acquitted in a trial last year.

Thorn was twice on the verge of accepting a plea bargain before changing his mind and going to trial earlier this year. Jurors convicted him in March of conspiracy and possessing a firearm.

“This has been extremely difficult — mentally, physically, emotionally,” Thorn told Brown. “I have a life. I have a family I would like to go back to.” Thorn has been in jail since June, when Brown revoked his conditional, pre-sentencing release because of suicidal threats.

Thorn’s lawyer, Jay Nelson, filed a sentencing memorandum that includes some details of his client’s childhood after he was born to a drug-addicted mother. Thorn’s abusive stepfather shackled him to a back porch for hours on end, securing his ankle with a heavy chain and padlock, the memorandum said.

Thorn was 12 when finally removed from the home and placed in foster care, Nelson wrote.

Prosecutor Ethan Knight agreed that Thorn’s upbringing was a mitigating factor but sought a sentence of more than two years, saying Thorn’s standoff role was “sustained and dangerous.” Thorn encouraged others to stay and fight authorities after the fatal shooting by police of occupation spokesman Robert “LaVoy” Finicum, Knight said.

The judge urged Thorn to embrace mental health treatment while in prison and get an education.

“You’ve got to find a way to live in this world that does not seem threatening to other people,” she said.

Several supporters of Thorn were outside the courthouse during the sentencing hearing, including Duane Ehmer, a co-defendant who starts his one-year prison sentence in January.

Ehmer showed up on the horse named Hellboy that he rode during the standoff.

Inside the courtroom, Thorn was excited to hear that Ehmer arrived on the horse.

“That’s what I’m talking about!” Thorn told court spectators before the sentencing hearing started.

What’s your favorite Thanksgiving side? For me, it’s all about the mashed potatoes. I remember at my first Thanksgiving with my now-husband and his family, I was absolutely APPALLED that no mashed potatoes were in sight. Yes. Not a single…

I’d say they have it mostly correct…

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-21/thanksgiving-staple-is-heading-for-compost-heap-on-u-s-surplus

(The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.)

(BPT) - Without a doubt, the holidays are definitely a nostalgic time of year, a chance to slow down and savor the things that make us feel happy and close to our loved ones.

You can’t celebrate the holidays without the help of a few seasonal foods! This time of year, stores are brimming with lots of delicious limited edition holiday offerings to eat and drink. They’re perfect to bring to a festive bash…