[0:01] Good afternoon, everyone. I'd like to convene the interim session of the House Ag and Natural Resources Committee, September 16, 2014. We're in order. Welcome to all of you. We have a full house today, which is obvious. And because of that, it will be, or may be difficult for all questions to be answered, and for everyone to have as much time as he or she would like.

[0:30] We have invited testimony only today, and we have some very, very heavy duty subjects that we're going to be covering.

[0:40] Because of that, we're going to have to adhere to a very strict time limit of depending on which topic we're on two to three minutes per person.

[0:50] My apologies to you in advance, but we have no other way of getting through our agenda without that's kind of strict adherence.

[0:58] If the committee members have additional questions that we are unable to get to from any of the folks that will be appearing today, please write down your questions, hand them into Beth, and she will get those answered for you.

[1:12] If the public has questions that you would like to have responded to, we will entertain those as well, and you can pass those in over here to the committee assistant, okay?

[1:30] And with that, we beg everyone's indulgence to help us get through this very strenuous agenda.

[1:42] And please, at all times, be cognizant of one fact.

[1:47] We are all Oregonians, and we must all respect each other's opinions.

[1:52] We may not agree with everyone, but as citizens of this state, we can do it better than anybody else.

[2:01] Please remember these are your friends and neighbors.

[2:04] With that, that's some housekeeping.

[2:08] Yeah, just two quick things.

[2:09] Members, you've probably already heard about the new recording system.

[2:13] So just to be aware that when the blue light is on, the recording system is functioning.

[2:17] When it's not on, it's not.

[2:19] with no longer flash, like it used to when it was being paused.

[2:22] And then second piece of housekeeping, and you've probably

[2:25] already heard about this, community services is just updated

[2:28] all of their background briefs.

[2:30] So if you are interested, and I'll be happy to help you find them

[2:33] on the website, or provide you with copies, whatever you'd like.

[2:36] So it's a couple of little housekeeping items.

[2:39] Thanks very much.

[2:42] For everyone in the audience, I think typically we hear in terms

[2:47] of force products in the industry that mills close down, that we have a lot of people who

[2:55] have or are losing jobs, that we are facing litigation, both foreign against the harvest

[3:06] of timber in the state, that folks are unable to get along, that we've paralyzed oftentimes

[3:14] the management of our forests and I am pleased today that we are going to be taking a look

[3:22] at Forest Health and I suspect to give you a very different paradigm than what we have

[3:27] been reading about and hearing about in the media.

[3:31] With that, I would like to call forward, please, State Forest, or Doug Decker, Brown Scone,

[3:36] and Chad Davis.

[3:43] Welcome to each of you, and some exciting things to talk about this afternoon.

[3:55] And so we begin, as we will, do you mind for the time?

[3:59] Thank you.

[4:01] Did you have a good afternoon, Chair Whit, members of the committee of the record main of Becker?

[4:05] I'm Morty State Forrestor and the Director of the Purple Forestry.

[4:09] We're going to focus in on forest health, particularly these are relates to federal forests today.

[4:15] Please to be joined by a number of folks, some who are here and others who will rotate up here in a few moments who have people who have helped us shape the state's approach to increasing the pace and scale of management on Oregon's national forest lands.

[4:31] You recall the State of Oregon through ODF is working exactly with local communities, and with federal agencies to improve the management, the resiliency of federal forests in Oregon.

[4:45] We refer to this as the collaborative support package, or the 2.88, may have heard that.

[4:51] That's 2.88 million dollars.

[4:53] A lot of it was that we've been investing in some very specific ways that Chaskin that described for you here in a moment.

[5:00] I think you're making a real difference for rural or in communities. Our goal in the 30 minutes that we have, if we can take that time, is to update you on the impact of the work.

[5:09] I'm going to start off by talking about why it's important, why this matters to Oregon, and then putting it in context with some new tools that Oregon has in place to work with the federal force management agencies.

[5:22] So for me, I want you to know why this is important and I would start with the first

[5:26] slide is that 60% of Oregon's forest lands are 30 million, there's 60% of our 30

[5:33] million acres.

[5:34] Forest lands are owned and managed by the federal government and their managed to achieve

[5:39] goals and outcomes that have been defined by Congress and that have been enacted in a set

[5:46] federal rules that are translated by the federal agencies and

[5:50] demand management plans.

[5:52] And the work that we're going to describe today of the 2.88 is really all within

[5:56] the context of those existing federal authorities, the National

[6:00] Force Management Act, the National Environment Policy Act.

[6:02] So this is within those existing authorities.

[6:05] The State of Oregon is preparing a set of recommendations about ways to

[6:10] modernize some of these authorities.

[6:13] And that's another conversation.

[6:14] We've begun that with our Board of Forestry, with the Governor's office, and with a growing

[6:19] number at the national level.

[6:23] And so this is really kind of playing within the existing authorities that are out there.

[6:28] And so here's the problem.

[6:30] We have a complicated confluence of conditions and choices and policies that have led to a situation

[6:36] in which much of Oregon's federal forests, not all of it, but much of it, particularly

[6:41] Eastern Oregon is in a compromised condition, and we see that through fire through the

[6:47] infestations of insects and disease where it's vulnerable there.

[6:51] This next slide will show you a picture of a forest ownership.

[6:55] The colors are different ownership types.

[6:59] And yellow on this map is a private industrial forest land.

[7:04] The green lands are Oregon's federal forest lands.

[7:07] And the residents are lands that are owned by Oregon's family forest landowners typically smaller landowners.

[7:13] You can see that the cascades, the southwest Oregon, and much of eastern Oregon, are owned and managed by the federal government.

[7:20] And so these lands that are federally owned represent a significant value and potential in terms of habitat.

[7:34] I'm going to ask everyone to please recognize that when we have folks up here

[7:43] testifying, they have the microphone, and I'm going to ask that the public please not

[7:51] interrupt.

[7:53] Thank you, sir.

[7:55] Thanks, Brett. So these federal lands really represent significant value, social, economic, and environmental value.

[8:06] Habitat, jobs, products, recreation, all the things that we want from multiple use managed forests.

[8:12] But there's been a set of legal challenges, of congressional gridlock, of highly debated public opinion, and really some outdated policies that have conspired to produce a set of conditions on these lands.

[8:25] that not only do not leverage the potential that they represent, but they actually work against

[8:30] the rural communities that are striving to survive. And in many cases, also export risks

[8:36] to adjacent non-federal forest lands as well. So the state working through the Governor's Office,

[8:42] the Board of Forestry, working with local communities, and collaborative, and with your leadership,

[8:46] we've been thinking about how we can make a difference here, and that's what we want to talk to you about today.

[8:51] So, Brett is going to tell us a little bit about the governor's standpoint.

[8:55] Chad is going to talk through how we've been investing the 2.8.

[8:59] And then I'm going to close, I'll come back after we have some of our other colleagues

[9:03] trying to, with a sense of this new authorities that we have through the federal farm bill called

[9:09] Good Neighbourn, so we're going to be able to find a way to work with federal agencies in 2015-17.

[9:19] Thank you for having me for the record.

[9:24] My name is Brett Browns, I'm not a resource policy advisor to the governor.

[9:28] What I wanted to start with, and I'd like to be brief is, in difference, the remaining

[9:33] presenters is just a bit about the governor's perspective on why this issue over federal

[9:40] forest management remains such an important one.

[9:43] Many people, if not most people in Oregon, probably can't name the National Forest that exist within the state were certainly the BLM districts within the state, but most people have their lives affected, whether they realize it or not often, bye.

[10:00] What happens on these lands and the conditions on these federal poorest lands, which has

[10:05] started pointed out, dominate the landscape acreage within the state, as shown on the map.

[10:12] So what I'd like to do is rattle off some examples of how the public is affected and

[10:20] what the various members of the public are affected by federal poorest management. And these

[10:26] based on real world examples of people who live in

[10:30] house district such as yours or senate districts of senator

[10:35] that I have come across in the past two to three years and so

[10:38] you know first there's the the rural resident whose community is

[10:42] directly adjacent to federal forest lands and uh... who has seen

[10:46] decreases in school enrollment or decreases in

[10:50] local jobs

[10:52] generally related to

[10:54] either the idling or closure of mills in their in their community. Then there's the

[10:59] resident of places like John Day or Klamath Falls or towns in the Wally, like yesterday

[11:05] who wonder whether they should send their kid to school or whether they should spend too much

[11:10] time outdoors because of excessive levels of smoke in the air due to wildfire, often burning

[11:17] on federal lands. Or there's the school board member or the superintendent or the local

[11:24] rural hospital director who is looking at an opportunity to reduce energy costs by converting

[11:30] a from fossil fuel sources, heating oil sources to what he biomass that has a connection

[11:37] to supporting for us health.

[11:40] There's also the tree-hugging environmentalists or the hunter who, like many people in the

[11:46] general public, want to know that they can find a place where they can find solitude or

[11:54] create, in a place with wild habitat that supports healthy, efficient wildlife populations that

[11:59] they can't find in urban environments, or people who just want to know that places like

[12:04] that exist within our state.

[12:08] There's also the millowner, the mill worker, the logger, the building architect, and some

[12:12] of the urban sectors are the trade commodities worker who are looking at the next opportunity

[12:16] or wondering whether there will be potential future economic opportunities tied to federal

[12:22] forest management, or the Portland resident who just had their rogue river float trip cancelled

[12:28] because they could no longer access to put in due to smoke or wildfire, or the Sisters Oregon

[12:35] Business Owner who had their inventory of clothing wiped out because they can't wash the smoke

[12:43] from the fabric after wildfire.

[12:46] And finally, there's the state, not to mention

[12:49] the national taxpayer who is seeing increasing

[12:55] general fund and millions in increasing general fund

[12:59] payments for fire suppression costs.

[13:01] So the first point here is that this is not just

[13:04] a real issue, but this is a statewide issue.

[13:08] And it affects citizens of many stripes,

[13:10] whether they live adjacent to federal lands

[13:12] or not. The current conditions on these lands are exposed or threatened all of the above

[13:19] interests that I mentioned in addressing these underlying causal conditions with proactive

[13:25] management is really key to finding solutions on the symptoms that are evidenced by the

[13:31] examples that are rattled off. The second point is that this is not just an issue of challenge,

[13:38] but also an issue of opportunity.

[13:41] And we'll hear more about this in a minute from Chad and Tom Insco,

[13:46] who came from afar, but the broad point here is that this is an issue that connects across

[13:53] economic, social and ecological values. And it can produce the elusive common ground for diverse

[14:00] in competing interests and it can provide that often sought after triple bottom line solution in a way that other issues don't always do.

[14:13] The issue has ties to the governors and the first ladies interests around advancing rural prosperity,

[14:19] but it also connects to Oregon prosperity, writ large.

[14:24] And it connects to our cultural identity, both past and present and future.

[14:28] So, importantly, Oregon is a leader in this, on this issue, and with growing recognition

[14:34] nationally, our history has been tied to the storyline around the Timber Wars, and that's

[14:43] our most recent history on this issue, but it's really been because of our locally grown efforts

[14:50] to move beyond that tired storyline of the Timber Wars through collaboration that we are

[14:55] getting national recognition.

[14:59] We know.

[15:00] Renational Forest Statewide, where there's not been litigation in seven years, because of the

[15:05] work of local forest collaborative groups. And our leadership is also as a state, is also based

[15:13] on your leadership as a legislative body, as demonstrated by the advancement of the

[15:20] a new form of constructive partnership with federal management agencies, as demonstrated

[15:25] through the, as well as local communities and local forest clover of groups that was demonstrated

[15:30] in 2013 with the investment of 2.85 million in enhancing the pace and scale of federal

[15:38] forest management work, which I know Chad will talk about. So to wrap up building on this momentum

[15:43] is very much in the Governor's interest because he believes it connects to many facets of the

[15:54] I know he looks forward to working together with the legislature and across party lines to advance the next round of

[16:02] solutions in Oregon leadership steps on this issue.

[16:08] And lastly, I want to mention the governor recently became Vice Chairman of the Western Governance Association,

[16:14] which puts him in line to become chair of the Association in 2015, late 2015.

[16:20] I know in that capacity he's looking forward to working with other Western

[16:25] governors on Federal Forest Management Policy and doing what he can to increase the

[16:32] space, the policy space that we have to build momentum around the positive examples

[16:39] that we have going right now for us, but also increase that space to enhance what we

[16:45] can do, and that does involve broader policy conversations with a community at the national level

[16:53] that Western governors are ideally positioned to influence.

[16:58] So with that, I'll close and stick around for any questions, but probably step in the back

[17:03] so that Tom Insco can come up and just want to thank you for the invitation.

[17:07] Thank you very, very much.

[17:09] Appreciate your terms.

[17:13] Chair Whit and members of the committee, for the record, my name is Chad Davis, and over

[17:18] at the Department of Forestry, I serve as the project manager on the state legislature's

[17:23] investment in federal forest health.

[17:25] I'm appreciative of this opportunity today to report on how we focus the state's investment

[17:29] to strengthen collaborative agreement for active management on federal forest and to increase

[17:35] the pace and scale of our health treatments.

[17:39] At the highest level, our strategy is targeted and based on a premise that a strong federal

[17:44] state partnership can meaningfully improve the status quo of forest management across

[17:49] the state.

[17:50] And our strategy is leveraged, both in terms of commitment, as evidenced by the Forest Service

[17:55] is willingness to partner with the state in this regard, and in terms of its funding, as

[18:00] evidenced by their obligation of an additional $10 million of federal funds in the same geographic

[18:06] region as the state's focus.

[18:08] As a result of the states' investment, the federal investment and the targeted approach being employed,

[18:14] local forest collaborative are maturing and increasing the scope of their agreements.

[18:19] One example is the Blue Mountain Forest Partners, based out of John Day,

[18:23] that are using a state awarded grant to retool their collaborative process

[18:27] to match the increased pace and scale of management happening on the Mount International Forest.

[18:32] Secondly, the Forest Service is refining its approach to project-level planning, and this effort is buoyed by state investments.

[18:41] The Forest Service's regional office made a three-year commitment, and that started last year, to fund a dedicated planning team for larger scale projects in the Blue Mountains region.

[18:53] The state funds are being strategically used to leverage even more process change within this particular team's purview.

[18:59] The Planning Team's first project is a 90,000 acre project called Lower Joe's of Creek

[19:04] Project in Allow County.

[19:07] We expect a decision on that project in December of this year.

[19:11] On Lower Joe's of state funds are being used to complete heritage resource surveys.

[19:16] With our federal partners, we have identified this survey protocol in particular for potential

[19:21] cost and time reductions.

[19:24] The Planning Team is also charged to deliver two other projects over the next two years.

[19:27] The second of which is a 500,000 acre project due in 2016.

[19:34] State funds are in play to support this very large scale project as well.

[19:39] Finally, all of the combined efforts, including public and private investments,

[19:43] are changing the direction of important metrics such as local employment and timber availability.

[19:51] As shown on this chart on the screen, we are seeing a significant increase in timber availability.

[19:57] In particular here is shown on the mount here in National Forest.

[20:00] Compared to what they've produced over the last 10 years. In this regard, state funds are being used to help present layout activities for projects that have already cleared environmental analysis, realizing that there is an additional needed capacity to get those projects, quote unquote, off the shelf.

[20:20] The volume of timber actually awarded is indicated by the yellow line on this graph has increased in each of the last three years.

[20:28] That includes almost 200% increase from 2012 to 2013 due to the award of a 10-year stewardship contract.

[20:37] Just two years ago, now your lumber company had announced it would close due to a lack of supply.

[20:43] Today that mill is buying logs and it has indicated an intent to reinvest to improve its milling capacity in the area.

[20:50] Well, difficult to plot as an empirical relationship with this increase in timber supply, unemployment

[20:56] in grant and horny counties declined by 1% from July of 2013 to July of 2014. That decline

[21:03] outpaces what we've seen across the entire state. Given the short window in response time

[21:10] for these more bulky metrics, anecdotal evidence makes a much stronger case about the positive

[21:16] impacts within the local economy of this work. I encourage each of you to

[21:20] follow a store owner in Grant County and ask them for yourselves. At this point, I'm

[21:24] going to hand this over to Mr. Tominsco, who can speak to the opportunities that

[21:27] these combined state and federal investments are yielding for the far

[21:30] sector.

[21:43] Mr. Let's go, welcome to our committee. Thank you for making yourself

[21:48] available. Please introduce yourself for the record and proceed. Chair Whit, committee members,

[21:54] My name is Tom Insco, I'm the Inland Area Manager for Boise Cascade and as Doug mentioned

[22:00] I also serve on the State Board of Forestry.

[22:07] Chad's mentioned some important metrics primarily focused on the ground.

[22:12] We obviously have a significant issue there.

[22:14] But also in business, robust performance metrics tied to meaningful outputs is a primary method

[22:22] for monitoring success.

[22:23] I think it's a perfectly legitimate question to ask how the $2.8 million dollars, what kind

[22:29] of return on investment have we had?

[22:32] And I would suggest it's significant because not only has a state leveraged federal partnerships,

[22:40] but private partnerships are also being leveraged and to provide some context in terms

[22:48] of where we were, literally, when this investment was first made, just a few years ago,

[22:52] industry was nearly in collapse in eastern Oregon, out here, Lumber, had announced closure,

[23:00] and I was literally in the process of analyzing how we would essentially exit all but one

[23:07] of our facilities.

[23:09] But then perspective today, Boise Cascade, employees 650 employees in eastern Oregon, so

[23:15] a huge switch in terms of where we were directly going and where we are today.

[23:21] I wouldn't suggest there aren't challenges, there are thorns on the roses that we're seeing out there.

[23:27] And that just illustrates the importance of continued investments in investment and diligence in this case.

[23:34] Currently, Boise Cascade is adding jobs and investing in operations in Eastern Oregon, doing part to the leadership and investment of the state.

[23:43] Recently, I testified here in Salem that we had added 70 jobs at our lumber mill in

[23:50] LaGrand and our Partic Board Plant outside of Island City.

[23:56] We're also making significant investments at our Elgin facility.

[24:00] We just completed a phase of a two-phase project that will be fully completed mid-year next

[24:06] year, represents $15 million of capital investment.

[24:10] And it's a new approach for creating a partnership with Federal Forest and what we need to do out there.

[24:18] What it will allow us to do is take material off the forest, not just federal, but crust all ownership to a two inch top.

[24:28] So a material that would have historically been left in the woods, we are going to keep attached to sawlog.

[24:34] We can scan that, we can merchandise that we can take that wood to the proper place whether it be chipping it or taking it into an existing mill infrastructure.

[24:44] The value in that really is, yes, we've got 15 million dollars of capital investment.

[24:49] But if you look at those mills that we have in Eastern Oregon, they really represent hundreds of millions of dollars of installed investment.

[24:57] And today, four of those five mills aren't running.

[25:00] So we've got opportunity. And with that insulted capacity, we can add an additional 150 jobs in eastern Oregon. So the trend is positive, but I would suggest that we need to continue to invest, we need to continue to be diligent and the state needs to continue to take a leadership role in forming new partnerships with federal owners in Oregon.

[25:27] Last but not least, I want to stress that there is the need for policy reform and we'll continue to work on that too as we go forward.

[25:34] So in closing, I just want to thank this committee. I want to thank the governor. I want to thank the staff and all those that are working diligently to really change the tide and rural Oregon and with forced health in eastern Oregon and across the state.

[25:49] Thank you, Mr. Instructor. Thank you very, very much. And again, I apologize for the

[25:56] brevity that we have you before us, but such as the nature. Give us a take home message.

[26:07] Take home message is the trend lines are going in the right direction. There is a ton more work to do.

[26:13] And some of the new tools that we have are going to set the stage for the next couple of years.

[26:20] We've gained an authority called Good Neighbor Authority within the federal farm bill,

[26:25] which allows state foresters within agreement and place with the federal agencies,

[26:29] actually manage a project on federal land to accomplish those objectives that have gone through that process.

[26:36] So what we're thinking about and we'll be talking with you more about in the full session is a package that would

[26:41] I was to essentially double the investment and further increase the pace and scale of restoration

[26:48] on technical four-stime.

[26:51] Gentlemen, thank you so very, very much and your message is one of hope.

[26:57] Thank you for your hard work.

[26:59] We look forward to hearing from you more about this here in the future.

[27:04] We'd love to bring a topic back related to buying that.

[27:07] We will be looking forward to hearing that.

[27:09] Thank you.

[27:21] All right.

[27:21] I'd like to call forward, please.

[27:24] Thomas Roy and Palmer Mason, please.

[27:34] Can we do all of this?

[27:36] Yes.

[27:36] Can we do all of this?

[27:40] Can we do all of this?

[27:45] Okay.

[27:45] All right.

[27:46] Fine.

[27:46] Thank you very much.

[27:47] I appreciate that.

[27:49] We will look forward to your presentation during the full session.

[27:53] I appreciate your helping us with the clock.

[27:56] We just gained five minutes.

[27:57] Thank you.

[27:59] With that, we're going to switch gears and move from forest health to the lead ammunition survey.

[28:10] And I'd prophesys by saying that there's been a great deal of discussion about the possibility

[28:17] of our state banning lead ammunition.

[28:21] And there's been it's not surprising a rather controversial issue of which a number of us on this committee have been receiving a great deal of communication from the general public.

[28:37] One hour ago I had at that point I had received 170 emails, so it's suggestive of how important this is to the general public.

[28:49] And we're looking forward to hearing more about what may or may not be proposed.

[28:57] With that, I'd like to call forward, please, Roy Elliker and Ron Anglan.

[29:05] Yes, Vice Chair Esquivel, please.

[29:07] Before the panel gets in place, I would like to add that I've received almost 200 emails on

[29:14] I don't remember before you begin, sir, a little on orthodox, but I understand that you may have a question or something.

[29:26] I'll tell you, that issue is why I'm here, and that I don't think it's proper to go on the last subject about

[29:33] for us without some influence of the public.

[29:36] Okay.

[29:37] We're here for an informational hearing.

[29:39] That's what this is all about.

[29:41] And we're receiving that information to assist us in helping to determine whether or not we may be entertaining certain pieces of legislation

[29:53] in the regular session.

[29:56] Based on the information that we received today, that may, that may, that may.

[30:00] May sway some of us or not. You will have and the rest of the public will have more than adequate

[30:06] opportunity during the legislative session to testify. And I'm sorry, sir, but I'm going to have to cut the public off.

[30:15] We have to move forward. My apologies.

[30:19] Gentlemen, welcome.

[30:22] Thank you for making yourselves available.

[30:25] And please give us your views on the led ammunition survey and whatever background that you might have for the committee.

[30:35] Thank you very much.

[30:38] Thank you Mr. Chair, members committee, Mr. Chair, with your indulgence, though.

[30:42] I would like to take a few minutes to speak about another matter.

[30:45] And to what's that?

[30:47] Identify yourself.

[30:47] Oh yes, for the record, my name is Roy Elker and I'm the director of the Oregon Department Fish Wildlife.

[30:54] And before I start my prepared comments which were passed out to the committee,

[31:00] before I start my prepared comments.

[31:02] What would like to practice my testimony that I think all of you know that I'm leaving this position and going to the Fish Wildlife Service and work on fisheries.

[31:11] And I wanted to come forward and Mr. Chair, I'm appreciative of the time frame,

[31:15] But it would be remiss if I did not thank this committee for all their help and support

[31:20] in the years that I have been in this building on Fishwallow Fisheries.

[31:24] And the appreciation of the many things I have learned about the business of governance from

[31:30] the members of this committee and others in the legislature, as well as the support for the

[31:35] department and for its policies and for the passion that all the members of this committee

[31:41] bring to fish wildlife management in Oregon.

[31:45] And I've never disagreed with the vice chair

[31:46] Representative Eskimo.

[31:49] But Mr. Chair, it's a bit of sweet moment for me.

[31:54] Friday's my last real day on the job.

[31:57] And then I'm moving out of the state government

[31:58] in the federal government where I hope I can bring the viewpoints

[32:01] of many of you into some of the federal processes.

[32:04] At least I'm hoping that's why they asked me

[32:06] to come join them when they get there.

[32:08] So again, I just want to thank the committee for all

[32:10] help to the years both individually and collectively. I've had many mentors on this committee

[32:16] and outside this committee, many folks have come and gone. All have been very helpful to me.

[32:20] And I want to thank each and every one of you. So thank you.

[32:23] Well, we're all in this committee. Thanks you for your service. You have always made yourself

[32:30] available, not only to this committee, but to the general public. I know that personally,

[32:37] that you love the resources that you managed and we have been in most capable hands under your leadership in guidance.

[32:46] Thank you, Mr. Chair, and now to my prepared testimony on the led ammunition survey.

[32:51] Let's take a couple minutes if I do want to put this on the record, Mr. Chair.

[32:55] In June 2014, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Oregon State University Wildlife Extension Unit began surveying

[33:02] The Oregon Hunters regarding their opinions and attitudes about lead ammunition, available alternatives, and strategies to use in other locations to reduce the use of lead ammunition.

[33:13] A survey of the non-hanging public is currently underway as well.

[33:18] The survey effort was prompted due to the increasing effort to restore California condors throughout their historic range, which includes portions of Oregon.

[33:27] California condors have been the subject of an intensive, high-profile recovery effort since

[33:32] 1980s when the condor population dwindled to just 22 birds.

[33:37] An intensive captive breeding program was initiated, including a facility operated by the

[33:42] Oregon Zoo.

[33:43] In 1992, condors were released, released in California, and in Arizona, 1996 by the

[33:49] United States Fish Wildlife Service.

[33:51] More recently, the service began discussions with the Yurak tribe of Northern California,

[33:56] regarding our lease site on tribal land south of the Oregon border.

[34:01] A memorandum of understanding was signed in March of this year,

[34:04] setting the stage for potential releases in Northern California in the near future.

[34:10] According to the Fish Wildlife Service, the primary cause of condom mortality is lead poisoning

[34:14] with lead ammunition is the primary source.

[34:17] The service states that while their lead exposure sources may exist for instance,

[34:21] chain tips, sciences clearly shown that condors are primarily supposed to lead by ingesting

[34:27] lead shot or fragments of lead bullets when feeding on carcasses.

[34:31] Lead rifle bullets fragment to hundreds of tiny pieces when they strike an animal and are left

[34:35] behind in the gut pile.

[34:37] And those are quotes from the service.

[34:39] According to the FishWive Service Documents, this threat and others must be addressed in a

[34:44] meaningful way in any proposal to reintroduce condors.

[34:47] The service uses the California legislation banning the use of land ammunition for hunting as an example.

[34:54] Voluntary programs in Arizona, Utah, are also identified as successful strategies to

[35:00] Reduce Condor exposure to let ammunition. These voluntary programs supported by a coalition of state and federal agencies, non-governmental organizations, industry and weedailers, include ammunition exchanges, incentives, education programs, and other efforts to encourage hunters to voluntarily switch to non-led ammunition area areas where condors are present.

[35:24] California condors are far-ranging and are known to fly as much as 150 miles a day in

[35:30] search of food. As a result, any condors released in Northern California can be expected

[35:35] to appear in Southern Oregon, where they will have full protection of the federal and dangerous

[35:39] species act. In addition, there is interest by tribes and other organizations to seek

[35:45] California condors reintroduced in Oregon. Once condors appear in Oregon, the Department

[35:51] respects that the state will be required to take some action to reduce condor exposure to

[35:55] lead.

[35:56] Did a part of an expects advocacy groups to pursue litigation, or from post legislation,

[36:01] or about measure, to completely ban or significantly restrict the use of lead ammunition

[36:05] for hunting?

[36:08] During the past few years, advocacy groups, like the Center for Biological Diversity, have repeatedly

[36:12] filed lawsuits or evitations challenging the use of lead ammunition, especially in

[36:17] as preconceived by condors. Similar legal challenges can be expected when condors appear in

[36:23] Oregon. And now right ban on the use of late ammunition for hunting could have a significant

[36:28] impact on hunting, wildlife management, and ODFW funding. Hunting is an important tool for

[36:34] managing wildlife populations. Additionally, we're having new from the sale of hunting and

[36:39] fishing licenses, and new latest federal exercise tax on firearms, ammunition, fishing

[36:44] Rod's tackle and other equipment provides more than 40% of the department's funding.

[36:49] Without this funding, the department would be unable to fulfill the statutory responsibility

[36:52] to manage Oregon's fishing activities and the joint with the president and future generations.

[36:59] Because of the significant potential impact of this issue, O.D.F.N.W. collaborated with the

[37:04] Oregon State University to survey hunters and the general public on lead ammunition, available

[37:09] alternatives, and strategy used in other locations.

[37:12] The Oregon State University Research Center, which has extensive experience conducting public

[37:17] opinion surveys, was contracted to conduct a survey and to collect the data for ODEF and

[37:22] W and the OSU Wildlife Extension Unit.

[37:26] The information gathered from the survey effort will be critical and future discussions

[37:30] regarding condors and any related discussions regarding lead ammunition.

[37:36] As the states, while if match an agency, the Department of Fellows should take the lead on assessing

[37:41] hundred opinions, rather than having to respond to surveys conducted by other organizations

[37:46] that may not accurately reflect the views of hunters and the public.

[37:51] A scientific survey conducted by a respected professional organization should minimize bias and

[37:57] ensure that the views of hunters and the public are represented as fairly as possible.

[38:01] The preliminary results of this survey are expected early in 2015.

[38:07] The survey effort is not, as some alleged, the first step towards a ban on lead ammunition.

[38:13] There are no proposals or plans by the Department or Commission to ban and restrict the use of lead ammunition.

[38:20] The use of lead ammunition for hunting is legal and organ with a general exception of waterfowl hunting.

[38:26] The Department sees no reason to change that.

[38:29] A well-designed voluntary program should be sufficient to meet FishWide Service requirements to address

[38:37] led exposure, should condors appear in Oregon.

[38:41] The survey results will be useful in developing that program, should have become necessary.

[38:47] In closing, the department is gathering hunter and public input, so that we are prepared for the eventual reappearance of condors in Oregon.

[38:54] Do anything less would be of the service to hunters, the public, and Oregon's Fish Wildlife Resources.

[39:01] Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[39:02] Thank you very much.

[39:06] Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.

[39:08] Ron Anglin, wildlife division administrator for the department.

[39:12] You also have a copy of our PowerPoint presentation.

[39:16] So I won't hit on every one of the slides simply to help with timing,

[39:21] But I will focus in on a few of them that I think would be really helpful to you.

[39:27] As Roya said, the condors are the focus of why we're in this survey.

[39:34] When you look at the historic range of condors here in Oregon, they obviously covered

[39:40] a good portion of the state.

[39:42] They're first documented by European man by Lewis and Clark.

[39:45] And the last known condor in the state was actually killed in southwest Oregon in the mid-30s.

[39:54] Currently condorers are found in several relief sites down California.

[40:00] And the California areas are under full ESA protection and the relief sites over in Arizona were part of an experimental, non-essential population, which actually allows more flexibility for Arizona game and fish in how they manage programs and allow them to really pursue their voluntary lead program that we'll talk about here in a second.

[40:26] Roy's already hit on the threats that have been identified to condors by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

[40:31] They're the ones that are driving this on the recovery effort, so I won't go into that much more.

[40:38] You're all aware of the California ban.

[40:42] That was not something that was proposed by the California Commission,

[40:46] but it was something that their legislature decided to take up

[40:49] up and is something that obviously all the states around California were watching with a

[40:57] great deal of interest because of the condor concerns and reintroduction of the birds

[41:02] and how that might impact other states.

[41:08] Arizona, as I said, was allowed to implement a voluntary program.

[41:13] They've been very successful with that.

[41:15] One of the things that they have done was they pulled together a stakeholder group to really talk about the program, they did hunter surveys and general public surveys and that's some of the recommendations they actually have made to other states that have been told that they will likely have contours in the near future is don't wait until the birds show up, get out ahead of it and start working on what you might want to do.

[41:45] need to deal with and finding out what your constituents really think. Utah just recently

[41:53] ended up with condors in the state coming from Arizona and Utah under the federal

[41:59] ESA also has had to deal with the lead issue in their hunting seasons in the southwest

[42:05] portion of the state and they've been following Arizona's example with a voluntary exchange

[42:12] program. This kind of gives you an example of bird movement from the release sites there in the

[42:20] Grand Canyon in Arizona. The birds moving into Colorado and up to Montana are Wyoming and

[42:27] back is a movement of about 250 miles altogether. It's not unusual for bird to move 150 miles in

[42:35] day and move back. Here's an example of one GPS colored bird down in California and the Central Valley

[42:43] and showing its movements over about a three week period of time ranging from nearly down

[42:50] down to the grapevine and the Tahone ranch up on top of grapevine just south of Bakersfield

[42:58] all the way to the north up to San Jose.

[43:03] So what does that mean for us, as Roy mentioned, the service as entered into agreements with the

[43:10] Yurok tribe, we expect that there will be releases within 2 to 5 years on the reservation in Northern

[43:19] California.

[43:20] And the graph on the left or the picture on the left kind of shows where the Yurok reservation

[43:26] is the picture on the right. Each one of those arrows represents a hundred miles. So based on

[43:35] what we know about the birds, the birds, it kind of gives you a feel for what we would expect

[43:41] once birds start moving, where we would expect them to show up and the service would then be looking at

[43:50] ESA take from lead in Oregon.

[43:56] Again, Arizona and Utah both have told us get out ahead of it.

[44:01] Don't wait and anything you can do as soon as possible to understand what your constituents think is well worth it.

[44:10] And that's what led us as Roy said into the survey effort and wine to know what our primary

[44:17] constituents think.

[44:19] And we felt very strongly that we needed to know that.

[44:24] And then finally, we'll have the results, let this fall early winter and make all those

[44:32] available to the public, to the legislature, you know, the led issue itself.

[44:38] I've been talking with sport group leaders, conservation group leaders, and boards of some

[44:45] of the statewide groups now for about three years, about condors and lead, and warning them

[44:52] that things are happening and that we can likely see it happening and coming into the state.

[45:00] The service has moved even closer to making that happen. That concludes our presentation.

[45:07] Thank you very much. Gentlemen, certainly appreciate your appearance.

[45:14] Can you give us just kind of a 30,000 foot

[45:18] a look-see of what a voluntary plan might entail.

[45:26] Yes, Mr. Chair.

[45:29] What the program that's held up as the example is what's happened in Arizona.

[45:37] And in Arizona, they have partnered up with various industry organizations,

[45:44] sporting good stores and hunting community.

[45:47] They've received special allocations of funding from their legislature and they conduct an ammo exchange.

[45:56] And so they'll give a person a coupon that you can take that coupon in and turn in a box of lead ammunition and get a free box of lead alternative copper ammunition.

[46:10] And in addition to that, they know that there's people that don't want to make that change,

[46:15] so they have a gut pile retrieval in pretty gross terms program that they've implemented,

[46:22] that if you bring your gut pile in the awful out of the woods and bring that into a check station,

[46:29] then they enter you into a drawing for items that have been donated by various organizations.

[46:36] And so it can be from ATVs, to guns, camping equipment, things like that.

[46:43] And Arizona has had between 80% and 90% compliance under their voluntary program.

[46:49] That has been challenged by some of the non-governmental organizations out there that they were

[46:57] taken to court over that and the court and services taken to court over it and the court

[47:02] held the voluntary program as appropriate and as a way to address the threat.

[47:09] Thank you very much. Representative Krieger, and then committee members, we're going to probably have to move on. I apologize.

[47:16] Thank you, Mr. Chair. You didn't want to do anything about the migration time a year, like our

[47:26] March, did these birds have summer-type adored you know?

[47:30] Chair Whit, Representative Krieger, we don't know 100% for sure what will happen here in Oregon.

[47:38] There's some speculation that Oregon may have been a summer area historically

[47:42] and that in the wintertime it was wet enough and damp enough.

[47:46] Condors really need thermals to be able to move and that in the wintertime that they may have gone south.

[47:52] They certainly in the Arizona Utah area have seen similar type movements, that birds will move out of the Grand Canyon up into Utah during the summertime, and they first started being noticed around sheep allotments on federal forest land in southwestern Utah, and then as hunting seasons and everything kind of come to a conclusion and the grazing allotments are closed down for the winter.

[48:19] the birds tend to move back into the canyon in Arizona.

[48:23] Okay, thank you.

[48:24] Sheldon, thank you very, very much.

[48:27] And Roy, the federal government's getting a great day.

[48:34] I'd like to call up next, please.

[48:36] Dan Edge and Colin Eagle Smith, please.

[48:42] Welcome to our committee.

[48:46] Chair, with members of the committee, for the record, my name is Dan Edge.

[48:50] I'm the Department Head and Department of Fisheries and Wildlife at Oregon State University.

[48:54] I'm just going to take a couple of minutes to sort of set the stage and then I'm going to turn it over to my colleague Colin Eagle Smith who really is the expert.

[49:03] We were asked to provide some information regarding the impact of lead on condors and other wildlife and part of me that's what Colin will do.

[49:14] But knowing that this is probably an issue that will come again before this body.

[49:19] I did want to at least a prize you of what the expertise is at Oregon State University relative to this type of information and so very quickly

[49:29] We have several people that have at least some expertise or some interest in the issue Dr. Dana Sanchez is an extension wildlife specialist that

[49:39] ODF and W. mentioned who worked with them to design the survey and to implement the survey through the survey research center.

[49:48] Dr. Sanchez actually is a mammal habitat ecologist, but she has a special interest in what we call human dimensions of fish and wildlife management, which is sort of this sociology.

[50:01] As a former Fish and Wildlife Commissioner, I'd say I'm very proud of ODIF and W. Engaging with Dr. Sanchez on this.

[50:11] This information on this survey will be critical in informing policy and management decisions. So delighted to see them get ahead of the situation.

[50:21] We have another professor, Dr. Clinton Eps, who is an associate professor of wildlife ecology.

[50:28] Mostly as a geneticist, but he is a long time competitor, rifle competitor and is interested

[50:35] in ballistic research.

[50:37] I believe I pass the committee a paper that he wrote recently entitled, considering the

[50:48] switch challenges of transitioning to non-led hunting ammunition and which he lines out what some

[50:55] of the many challenges are going to be if hunters decide that they want to switch. It's not

[51:02] a simple proposition as we've already heard.

[51:08] Dr. Susan Hague is a courtesy professor of wildlife

[51:12] and USGS senior scientists working, she basically is a small population

[51:21] demographer and has worked on condor recovery, specifically related to

[51:28] population genetics. She and her graduate student just recently published a book on

[51:34] condors and a Pacific Northwest, which has all the historical information about

[51:39] where we think they occurred.

[51:44] Other expertise at Oregon State University, of course there's the entire department of molecular

[51:49] environmental toxicology.

[51:51] So this committee becomes interested in environmental faith, risk assessment, or human health

[51:58] concerns.

[52:00] I would recommend you contact Dr. Craig Marcus, who is the department head.

[52:04] And so now I'm going to yield my time to Dr. Colin Egel Smith.

[52:10] He's a courtesy assistant professor in our department, and it's a supervisory research

[52:15] ecologist with USGS.

[52:17] He is an expert in toxicology and wildlife health type issues in particular is interesting

[52:25] the interactions of ecological processes and contaminant bio accumulation and effects on wild

[52:32] populations.

[52:33] He's also co-author with Dr. Susan Hague of another chapter in the book that I just referenced and I believe the committee has that copy and with those introductory marks, I yield my time to Dr. Eagles.

[52:49] Thank you very much and welcome.

[52:52] Thank you. Thank you, Chair Whit and members of the committee for the record. My name is Colin Eaglesmith with the US Geological Survey.

[52:57] My lab focuses largely research on the bio-accumulation and exposure of environmental contaminants

[53:04] in wildlife and fish and that ecotoxicological effects of those contaminants on AV and fish

[53:10] communities.

[53:12] I mean, it used my time today to talk briefly about the background of lead as environmental

[53:17] contaminants and what we know about exposure in wildlife communities and the potential

[53:21] impacts to those wildlife species.

[53:24] I'm not going to touch too much on the actual effects of California condor,

[53:28] Dr. Finkelstein is here and she's an expert on that, so I'm going to yield that discussion

[53:32] to her.

[53:34] So, let it is a naturally occurring element in geological material.

[53:37] It's distribution and occurrence in the environment has been increased dramatically

[53:40] over the last several hundred years due to human activities.

[53:44] And it's a neurotoxin known to impair reproduction.

[53:47] It can also impact behavior and various physiological processes.

[53:52] The toxicological effects of lead have been linked to a number of human derived sources, including

[53:58] consumption exposure to lead-paint chips in wildlife, as well as mining and smelting processes,

[54:07] sinkers and fishing tackle and ammunition.

[54:10] Those are all sources of lead that have been documented associated with various effects in different fish and wildlife species.

[54:16] We're here today because the concern about lead in hunting ammunition is acute, largely because

[54:24] when lead is releasing the environment as ammunition, it's released into habitats where

[54:29] wildlife co-car, and fragments that are left behind in gut piles are essentially left

[54:34] behind in a food resource for scavengers and other wildlife species.

[54:40] Modern light court bullets are designed to expand and plant impact, they distribute their

[54:44] through the wound channel. And so you don't have one large slug in an organism. You have a

[54:50] number of very small fragments that are distributed along the course of the wound channel.

[54:53] This results in two things. First, the small fragments have a larger surface area than one large slug.

[55:00] So that can increase the assimilation absorption of lead into the digestive tract. Secondarily, in scavengers and other social foraging species, you can have more than one individual exposed when you have the lead distributed through a carcass.

[55:14] So things like vultures or condors that forage socially, you can have multiple individuals exposed to lead when they're forging on a carcass that does have lead fragments in them.

[55:24] The stomach acids dissolve the lead and it can then assimilate into the circulatory system where it elisits a range of physiological effects.

[55:32] Two of the most prevalent and common effects that we see in wildlife are the inhibition of blood-protein hemsynthesis.

[55:41] So it's the precursor to hemoglobin, it can result in anemia, and then a very deleterious effect we see is neurological impacts in various wildlife species.

[55:52] and this is largely due to the fact that lead mimics calcium in vertebrate properties, and calcium

[55:57] is an important component of nerve signaling, and so it can actually block the movement

[56:03] of nerve signals through an organism resulting in altered foraging behavior in lethargy and

[56:10] poor coordination ultimately poor survival.

[56:20] One of the complications in understanding lead risk in wildlife is that there's limited

[56:26] actual, despite the fact we've been researching this for decades, there is very limited information

[56:32] on strong toxicological benchmarks across a range of species. There's very good knowledge

[56:37] on a few species that have been very well studied, not very clear understanding of the baseline

[56:42] effects and concentrations that elicit effects in wildlife across a range of species at lower concentrations.

[56:50] There's also a lot of variation in the sensitivity of different species to exposure to lead,

[56:55] So a recent scientific survey of scientific publications

[56:59] over 80 publications were surveyed in this review found

[57:03] that when looking at the highest concentration

[57:08] that would cause no observable effects across a range

[57:12] of different species, there was a 1600 fold range

[57:15] in that concentration that caused no effects across species.

[57:21] When you look at the concentrations in blood,

[57:24] There's a less of a range about 50 fold range and that lowest affects concentration, but still tremendous variation in different species and their sensitivities to lead.

[57:33] So you can't use a benchmark developed for a quail and apply it to a lead concentration that you might measure in the blood of a golden eagle or a condor.

[57:43] And there's a limited information of what the toxicological thresholds are of those other species.

[57:50] And moving on to wildlife exposure to lead ammunition.

[57:53] I'm going to stick to an example of big game largely.

[57:56] There are a number of vectors associated with lead-based ammunition,

[58:00] but when the urban studies on deer shot with a single bullet

[58:04] and hundreds of fragments have been left behind in the carcass

[58:07] and on average about 160 small fragments are left in the gut piles.

[58:13] The species obviously most likely to be exposed to those fragments

[58:16] are scavenging species, such as turkey veltures, condors, ravens, and raptors, there's

[58:21] eagles and hawks.

[58:25] For those species to be exposed, do you need to have overlap in both space and time?

[58:30] So understanding the life history strategy of the species, condors, or any other species,

[58:35] and the spatial and temporal distribution of hunting activities and the distribution of

[58:39] light in the environment is very important.

[58:41] Dr. Egel Smith, I apologize sir, but can you, can you, can you

[58:46] wrap this up? Could you, yes, hit the high points? Absolutely. Thank you. I almost

[58:52] don't. Recent work in Wyoming has found that during the hunting season, about 47% of

[58:59] ravens were exposed to elevated levels of blood in their blood, outside the hunting season,

[59:05] 2% of ravens were exposed to lead. Similarly in California, during the hunting season,

[59:10] cultures, where twice is likely to be exposed to lead in the lead concentrations in their blood,

[59:15] where about twice is high as during the non-hunting season.

[59:21] So, finally, moving into what we know about lead in Oregon and lead in a while like life

[59:26] in Oregon, that's a tremendous data gap.

[59:28] There's very little information about exposure rates in free-flying wild birds.

[59:33] There's a lot of information from rehabilitation communities, and the information they provide

[59:38] is great for birds that are sick or injured, however we know very little about free-flying

[59:44] or free-ringed wild species in the state. We're currently doing research at USGS, looking

[59:49] at scavengers across the states. We have collected blood samples from about 465 birds

[59:56] over the last two to three years, and we expect those, we're looking forward to

[1:00:00] When it results to be out in the next 6-12 months, at which point that will really help facilitate

[1:00:04] an understanding of potential hotspots of exposure for condors or other wildlife species in the state.

[1:00:12] Thank you.

[1:00:13] Thank you very, very much. Gentlemen, I appreciate your testimony.

[1:00:18] Committee members, I just don't have time to open it up to general questions, but if someone

[1:00:23] has that burning question that you feel needs to be asked to clarify anything.

[1:00:29] I would accept the question.

[1:00:32] I do have a question.

[1:00:33] I'll present a question.

[1:00:36] I was wondering what caused the initial decline in the condor in the 1970s.

[1:00:41] I understood it was thinning shells from pesticides.

[1:00:45] Is that correct?

[1:00:47] The thinning shells from pesticides was one factor in the decline, yes.

[1:00:51] There's the thought that lead was a contributing factor as well as

[1:00:55] actual shooting of the condors for feathers and other things and exposure to DDT and other pesticides

[1:01:01] resulted in thin egg shells and inability of them to use.

[1:01:06] That's what I was told, but I would assume that we've now had a recovery.

[1:01:12] There is some evidence that the sun birds foraging along the coastlines are still receiving

[1:01:17] elevated levels of DDT, or actually it's breakdown product, DDE, and there have been,

[1:01:23] at least a few egg shells that have been recovered recently

[1:01:26] that have been fined.

[1:01:27] So these are a birds along the Southern California

[1:01:30] by it where they're still as elevated concentrations

[1:01:33] of DDE in the sediments.

[1:01:34] So we really don't know what's causing.

[1:01:37] I mean, we can't say there is a single source

[1:01:40] of this causing the condorers to decline

[1:01:43] given that they're back on the upswing after the 1970s.

[1:01:47] So I just want to establish that we don't know

[1:01:50] that led is causing the decline of the condor or is actually a problem.

[1:01:56] I think Dr. Finkelstein can speak to that.

[1:01:59] Gentlemen, thank you very, very much.

[1:02:00] I appreciate your appearance.

[1:02:03] With that, I'd like to call forward please.

[1:02:08] Professor Finkelstein and Deborah Schaefer, please.

[1:02:25] I'm going to have to ask, please, respect the process. We have a lot of people to testify.

[1:02:37] Welcome to our committee. Thank you for your parents. Please introduce yourselves and proceed.

[1:02:47] Hello, Chair Whit, and the members of the committee.

[1:02:50] Thank you, I'm honored to be here today.

[1:02:51] My name is Dr. Finkelstein, and I've been setting the effects of environmental impacts

[1:02:56] from lead poisoning on wildlife species, including California conders over the last 10 years.

[1:03:00] I would like to say that I've published work that demonstrates that lead poisoning from

[1:03:04] spent lead ammunition is the number one or for the cause of mortality for California conders

[1:03:09] in California, and we've showed that the mortality related directly to lead poisoning

[1:03:14] from ingesting spent-led ammunition is preventing the recovery of the California

[1:03:18] Condor in California. So that's been published. I'd be happy to pass that out to anyone.

[1:03:25] I also just wanted to briefly address one other point that was raised and that was that

[1:03:30] although the volunteer programs in Arizona have been incredibly successful in terms of participation

[1:03:34] rates of 90%. We have yet to see that translate to an impact or to a significant reduction

[1:03:41] And the number of dead contours led poisoning.

[1:03:44] So there seems to be a lot of people participating, but we have not seen that translated

[1:03:47] into fewer dead dead poison contours.

[1:03:51] Some of the work that we've also published has illustrated that very low-carcass contamination

[1:03:55] rates across the landscape can actually still result in a high probability that an individual

[1:04:00] scavenger or california contours led poisoned.

[1:04:04] And some of that work is actually in your package.

[1:04:05] So, I'm moving on to my more general testimony as Dr. Egel testified that is one of the most well-study toxins, and there's a vast amount of scientific evidence that shows that lead is toxic to multiple physiological systems across multiple vertebrates species.

[1:04:22] For children, lead is particularly susceptible to blood poisoning, and there's currently no level of lead exposure known to be without long-term cognitive impairment for children, none.

[1:04:33] To help inform the public about the effects of spend-led ammunition on human wildlife health

[1:04:38] in March of 2013, I joined with 29 other scientists, the world's leading experts, including

[1:04:44] physicians, veterinarians, toxicologists, and wildlife biologists in the field of lead

[1:04:48] and environmental health to release a consensus statement of scientists, which is also in your

[1:04:52] packet.

[1:04:53] As a co-author of this consensus statement, I can affirm that this was an unbiased assessment

[1:04:57] of the best scientific evidence.

[1:05:00] State's lead is a powerful toxicant, harmful to human health in the environment, and that the discharge

[1:05:05] from lead ammunition from activity such as hunting, potentially exposes wildlife in humans to detrimental

[1:05:11] amounts of lead. Lead-based ammunition production is the second largest annual use of lead in the United

[1:05:18] States, and consequently lead-based ammunition is likely the greatest largely unregulated source

[1:05:24] of lead knowingly discharged into the environment in the United States.

[1:05:29] In contrast, other significant sources of lead in the environment such as

[1:05:32] blooded paint, and lead in gasoline are recognized as harmful and have been significantly reduced

[1:05:38] or eliminated over the last 50 years. Lead bullets used to shoot wildlife as Dr. Eagle Smith

[1:05:43] attested can fragment a hundred small pieces with large proportions being sufficiently small

[1:05:49] to be easily ingested by scavenging animals or incorporated into process meat for human

[1:05:54] consumption, and published studies have documented this occurrence.

[1:05:58] Lead poisoning from the gestant of spent-led ammunition, fragments poses a particularly

[1:06:02] serious threat for scavenging species, including california condors, but also golden

[1:06:07] eagles, bald eagles, ravens, and turkey vultures, and published studies have documented

[1:06:11] that organ wildlife is also affected by lead poisoning, and it was probably from lead poisoning

[1:06:15] from ingesting spent-led ammunition from hunting.

[1:06:19] Our published work illustrates that even a small numbers, what I said earlier, led

[1:06:23] containing carcasses across the landscape can lead to a high probability that a scavenging

[1:06:27] species is less exposed.

[1:06:29] And given the vast body of scientific evidence demonstrating that the use of lead in ammunition

[1:06:33] is a serious threat to human wildlife health, the conclusion of our consensus is a statement

[1:06:37] of scientists.

[1:06:38] Again, made up of 30 of the world's leading experts on lead in an environment on human health.

[1:06:44] Was that given the availability of non-led alternative products for hunting, reducing and

[1:06:49] eventually eliminating the introduction of lead into the environment, from lead based ammunition

[1:06:53] is a reasonable and equitable action to protect human wildlife health.

[1:06:57] Thank you.

[1:06:59] Thank you very, very much.

[1:07:01] Dr. Shafer.

[1:07:03] Good afternoon, Chair Whit and members of the committee.

[1:07:05] My name is Dr. Deborah Shafer.

[1:07:07] I'm a wildlife veterinarian with over 20 years of experience treating injured wildlife.

[1:07:12] Serving as the wildlife veterinarian at the Audit Bons Society of Portland's Wildlife

[1:07:15] Care Center for the past 10 years.

[1:07:17] We treat approximately 3,000 injured wild animals per year.

[1:07:21] Today, I'm here representing the Audubon Society of Portland and our 15,000 members.

[1:07:26] I'm here to convey a very simple message.

[1:07:29] Let us poison.

[1:07:30] We abandon lead from gasoline, paint, and other uses because of its toxic effects.

[1:07:36] It is banned from use and waterfell hunting because of well-documented impacts on ducks, peace, and swans.

[1:07:42] However, we continue to allow lead to be used in other forms of hunting.

[1:07:46] We knowingly and intentionally shoot huge quantities of lead into the environment and what's in the environment it can enter the food chain through either direct ingestion or through scavaging of gut piles or carcasses left in the environment.

[1:08:01] And please make no mistake this does happen.

[1:08:04] Each year wildlife hospitals across Oregon and across the United States devote huge resources to treat bald and golden eagles and other species that have been impacted by this unnecessary and avoidable threat.

[1:08:14] Lead poisoning can happen rapidly or can accumulate in an animal system over time.

[1:08:19] It takes a very small amount of lead, as mentioned previously, today, just a fragment to cause potentially lethal impacts.

[1:08:28] Lead poisoning affects essentially all organ systems.

[1:08:32] Symptoms can include weakness, disorientation, emaciation, anemia, seizures, blindness, and other other signs.

[1:08:40] I have to say, lead poison cases are some of the saddest cases we see in our hospital, they are truly suffering animals.

[1:08:48] By the time they reach us, most of them cannot be saved.

[1:08:52] And for those that do survive, the recovery can take months and cost thousands of dollars.

[1:08:57] One example is an adult bottle that came into our center from long view last year and was treated at our facility.

[1:09:04] It took four weeks of intense therapy.

[1:09:06] and then three months more every of the protests and so it could gain strength and

[1:09:11] conditioning to be suitable for really back to the wild.

[1:09:15] Some will tell you that the unnecessary and wasteful death of a wild animal for

[1:09:18] lead poison is not a matter for concern.

[1:09:22] They're wrong.

[1:09:23] First of all, we know that what we are seeing in wildlife hospitals across the United

[1:09:27] States is just the tip of the iceberg.

[1:09:29] Most wild animals that suffer lead poisoning are never recovered.

[1:09:32] These deaths for the most part occur in remote places in the natural instinct of a wild animal when it is sick as to hide.

[1:09:39] The fact that wildlife hospitals see as many poisoned animals as they do is indicative of a far larger problem.

[1:09:46] Second, the wasteful and completely unnecessary deaths of our native wildlife should not be something we accept.

[1:09:52] Most of these species are protected at the federal and state level.

[1:09:55] Some of them, such as bald eagle, we've spent decades and millions of dollars.

[1:10:00] Allers recovering. Just as we work to reduce poaching electricutions, other forms of poisoning, and to restore habitat, we should also be working diligently to reduce the toxic impacts of lead on these species.

[1:10:14] Finally, I don't believe that if anyone in this room actually saw a bald eagle suffering the effects of lead poisoning, they could stay in here and say that it does not matter. Lead poisoning is a horrendous, sad way to die.

[1:10:27] The impacts of lead ammunition on wildlife are well documented.

[1:10:30] There are alternative to lead, just as we have done with gasoline, paint, and numerous

[1:10:35] other sources of environmental lead, it's time to get the lead out of our ammunition

[1:10:40] use for hunting.

[1:10:42] Thank you.

[1:10:42] Thank you very, very much.

[1:10:46] Committee members, limited questions for doctors at Finkelstein and Shafer.

[1:10:57] What was the method of exposure was in gestion of the lead?

[1:11:04] How was that exposure?

[1:11:06] How did that occur?

[1:11:08] Well, you mentioned the ball legal.

[1:11:11] Yes, it was in gestion, and actually in that ball legal, we were actually the first

[1:11:15] it came in, able to see radiographic evidence of metal in its stomach, but it was by in gestion.

[1:11:24] Thank you both very, very much, appreciate your appearance.

[1:11:29] With that, I'd like to call forward, please, stand still, Kevin Starrot, and Dan Reed.

[1:11:44] And gentlemen, to the extent that you can be brief and to the point it would be greatly appreciated.

[1:11:52] Welcome to our committee.

[1:11:54] Thank you.

[1:11:54] Thank you for making yourselves available.

[1:11:56] Please decide among yourselves who goes first.

[1:12:01] Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, my name is Dan Reed.

[1:12:03] I state liaison with the National Rifle Association.

[1:12:06] I want to thank you for having us here and allowing us to be part of this

[1:12:10] informational hearing on this led survey.

[1:12:12] I know personally a lot of far organ members have reached out to me with concerns

[1:12:16] with a number of editorial that have been running the papers and this campaign

[1:12:20] along with the survey that came out with biodefW and OSU.

[1:12:25] I just wanted to point something out.

[1:12:28] I want you, I'm encouraging the members of this does come before the committee to really look at the science and look at it hard and the underlying data.

[1:12:36] One of the messages we heard today was lead is back.

[1:12:39] We heard that.

[1:12:40] And I didn't hear anyone point out the difference in elemental lead in industrial lead.

[1:12:46] And we heard about legacy pain and gasoline.

[1:12:49] And we heard about bullets and they all got lumped into one category.

[1:12:52] But they're very different.

[1:12:53] Let ammunition is an elemental lead, which is much different as much different characteristics and there's much different exposure compared to the industrial lead.

[1:13:03] So I really encourage you to look at that, look at these studies, see how the science was being performed, what's the underlying basis for it.

[1:13:11] Now, the reason that you call the hearing today is for this survey, and I was here to get a lot of information at Sokin.

[1:13:18] What's the plan?

[1:13:20] Mr. Ellicard did a great job of explaining it.

[1:13:22] We want to thank him for his service.

[1:13:24] He's leaving right now.

[1:13:25] Thank you very much.

[1:13:26] But that's a lot on your next endeavors.

[1:13:29] So that was very enlightening.

[1:13:31] One of the things that was of concern with this survey, and I'm trying to keep it very brief.

[1:13:36] Thank you.

[1:13:36] When you looked at this, there was one question in particular where it asked the

[1:13:42] What would influence you to switch your non-none to switch the non-led ammunition?

[1:13:47] Seems like kind of a leading question, and I was kind of curious where they were going with that.

[1:13:51] And I couldn't help but notice when I was scouring the internet that the Oregon Zoo is advertising for a wildlife and lead outreach coordinator.

[1:14:01] So well-paying job, $55 to $73,000 a year.

[1:14:05] And if you look at the summary here for the Oregon Zoo's Conservation and Research Division,

[1:14:10] looking for a wildlife and lead outreach coordinator to spearhead the development and

[1:14:14] an implementation of a wildlife and lead outreach initiative.

[1:14:18] The program is envisioned to provide education outreach with the goal of reducing the

[1:14:22] exposure of wildlife and lead, which has been identified as a significant cause of morbidity,

[1:14:27] mortality and wildlife.

[1:14:29] And then it talks about the coordinator will travel throughout the state to build relationships

[1:14:32] with hunters.

[1:14:34] I just thought it was interesting how these two documents came out at a very similar time.

[1:14:38] I didn't know what the purpose of the survey was.

[1:14:41] I just wanted to make sure this was brought to everyone's attention that this is going

[1:14:45] on.

[1:14:45] And there could be some advocacy with your tax dollars as far as furthering a agenda.

[1:14:50] The California model was mentioned in 2007 we had an outright ban in the Condor region,

[1:14:57] despite 99.8% compliance or rough.

[1:15:01] The lead levels in the condor remain stagnant in some cases we saw in increase. And so it wasn't effective, but California chose to go to a statewide ban that's being implemented over the next few years.

[1:15:12] I would encourage you to look at that hard and let's make sure we're basing everything on the back. Thank you very much.

[1:15:16] Thank you very much.

[1:15:19] For the record, my name is Kevin Starrin with the Oregon Fire and Federation. Thank you for the invitation to speak to you today.

[1:15:24] I prefer to testify when I have a bill to deal with and quite frankly quite certain we will be facing a bill or perhaps an administrative rule.

[1:15:33] But based on some previous testimony, I think that clearly in some people's ultimate goal is a complete ban on the availability of land ammunition period.

[1:15:43] I looked at the survey and received one obviously, but I did look at it. It didn't seem it was fair on bias to me at all as Mr. Reed pointed out.

[1:15:50] definitely seem to be some leading questions with an effort to get a specific response.

[1:15:57] The fact is, as Mr. Reed said, there is a lot of competing science on this, and as he pointed

[1:16:02] out in California, the band not only failed to work, but resulted in elevated levels of lead

[1:16:07] in some conduits. A previous speaker testified that in the state where there was a voluntary program

[1:16:12] with massive compliance that it didn't work. So it's hard to conclude that when lead is being removed

[1:16:19] And the problem is not being solved that lead is actually the problem.

[1:16:25] The other thing I want to point out is that there are not really very many good alternatives to lead for bullets.

[1:16:33] The fact is that bullets are made a lead for a reason because of the density, because of the ability to do.

[1:16:39] This is the composition of the lead is ideal and it's going to be very, very difficult and very, very expensive to replace that.

[1:16:45] There's one of the few alternatives is something like depleted uranium, which I don't think anybody really wants to use.

[1:16:50] But to replace lead in bullets is for the most part, really not practical at all.

[1:16:57] And so given the extreme difficulty of creating alternative and the cost,

[1:17:02] and at this point, no real evidence that it's had any positive effect,

[1:17:05] I think we should pay a lot of attention to this as the inevitable bill or administrative bill comes rolling down the pike.

[1:17:12] Thank you very much.

[1:17:17] chairweight, chairweight, vice chair, Escovall, members committee, my name is Stan Steele,

[1:17:22] representing the Oregon Outdoor Council, and just Hunters, and Shooters. This is going to be a

[1:17:27] contentious issue. It's not going to be solved today. I would say that probably not going to be

[1:17:31] solved in next year or two. Took a long path in California, and actually tomorrow, California will be

[1:17:37] having hearing on how to implement their A.B. 7.11, there's a ban.

[1:17:43] It's going to be phased in over a period of years.

[1:17:45] I actually think it has to be phased in totally by 2019.

[1:17:50] It's still controversial whether that legislation actually is going to work in California

[1:17:54] and actually help the condor.

[1:17:56] I think both speakers and what we've heard before really outlines the depth and breadth of the issue.

[1:18:02] Hunting is huge door again, shooting is huge door again. Hunting and shooting nationally

[1:18:09] provides the bulk of the pit and the Robinson funding. Our agencies and our wildlife depend

[1:18:17] on adequate funding because certainly other sources have not stepped to the forefront.

[1:18:24] So as we move through this debate, let's keep caution, not slowly, understand that there

[1:18:30] There's a lot of science on both sides of this and just because your scientist doesn't mean

[1:18:36] that you do not have a scientific bias on issues.

[1:18:39] I think most of us out here in this community understand that.

[1:18:42] A gender-driven science would be the worst policy science to use to worst policy science to

[1:18:48] use.

[1:18:49] Let's keep it fair, respectable, to all user groups, but I understand ultimately all of this

[1:18:55] not the same thing, what's best for Oregon?

[1:18:57] Best for our wildlife.

[1:18:58] And I think decisions then will probably be made.

[1:19:01] Thank you.

[1:19:02] Thank you very much.

[1:19:05] Committee members, once again, I've recognized

[1:19:10] that there may be some very pressing questions here,

[1:19:13] we're a little bit over time.

[1:19:15] But if someone has the question that needs to be answered,

[1:19:19] and we have our experts, I want to allow that.

[1:19:22] I'm not seeing any gentlemen.

[1:19:24] And I do have, I have one of those questions,

[1:19:32] are any of you, possibly all of you familiar

[1:19:37] with the terminal ballistics of a lead bullet, a jacket, excuse me, a jacket, a lead bullet,

[1:19:51] any of you familiar with that?

[1:19:52] Because I have a question for anyone who is.

[1:19:55] I would probably defer. I'm I'm I'm I'm going to be relatively close.

[1:20:03] Let me pose the question and see if any of you feel confident to be able to answer it. It has

[1:20:13] the appearance at least to me that there is an assumption that Jacketed led bullets fragment upon

[1:20:20] impact with with with an animal. Now I am a hunter myself. I personally do not choose to hunt with

[1:20:33] fragmentary bullets. They are not terribly effective, at least that's been my experience.

[1:20:40] And I am and none of the hunters that I'm aware of, choose that type of ammunition either

[1:20:48] that honor is typically look for a bullet that upon impact, mushrooms and holes together for penetration purposes.

[1:21:04] Is that, is the assumption that lead bullets fragment?

[1:21:08] Is that, is there an assumption here that the bullet is just led and we are not considering the jacketing effect of a bullet?

[1:21:18] What would you comment on this point share away?

[1:21:22] Nice chair as well in members of committee. I think I can dress that 25 years. I checked literally thousands of Oregon deer in elk. I was a foreign fish and wildlife officer. I examined

[1:21:33] Many knee crops. He's field E crops. He's also a game guys talked about trying to find the bullet trying to find fragments. But oftentimes they were very, very important evidence in prosecution. Especially if we had a crime, but you can whatever it may be.

[1:21:46] I think Michigan or Minnesota just completed a research study where they used 250 carcasses.

[1:21:52] Sheeper pick, I can't remember which exactly, where they shot bullets into these carcasses.

[1:21:57] We did hear that bullets just fragment and if they could be because of that fragmentation,

[1:22:02] it could be very susceptible to all types of scavengers or anything.

[1:22:05] So whatever else, I want to eat on them.

[1:22:07] That's not really true. In some cases, it's very true.

[1:22:10] But to generalize and share what you're absolutely correct.

[1:22:13] The last thing we want to do when a piece of honey ammunition is David Fragment, not leave

[1:22:18] a moment to handle the exercise, and last even out of damage, that's the kill power,

[1:22:23] that's the down range impact.

[1:22:25] I've actually used Barnes-Alt Copper, they're a good bullet, but for earlier testimony indicated

[1:22:31] this alternative ammunition is widespread and available, untrue, twice the cost, availability

[1:22:41] is extremely limited, male order and many cases

[1:22:45] in the possible.

[1:22:47] So I think what we have to make sure is

[1:22:49] that the information is clear, precise, and accurate.

[1:22:55] And the listics are going to be a big portion of that discussion.

[1:22:58] If I'm a Mr. Chairman, I have a good fortune to have

[1:23:02] some associates and friends who are very well versed in this.

[1:23:05] And I did go to them and ask some questions like that.

[1:23:08] And one of the things they pointed out is,

[1:23:10] I have the notes they gave me.

[1:23:11] The objective is to design a bullet that is dense enough to penetrate, strong enough to

[1:23:17] hold together to break bones, but malleable enough to expand to create a large wound

[1:23:22] channel while dumping all of the bullets energy inside the ammo, which would not be what

[1:23:27] how you would describe a fragmentary bullet.

[1:23:33] Hi, sir.

[1:23:33] I was supposed to do that.

[1:23:34] Yeah.

[1:23:34] Well, actually, I can chime in a little bit here.

[1:23:37] I took an L1 time and hit him three times in his tenderloin and all three bullets stayed inside.

[1:23:44] And I weighed those bullets and there wasn't a green difference in all three ways.

[1:23:51] From what I started with and when I finished with.

[1:23:53] So no offense but I just don't subscribe to what some people are saying in this hearing.

[1:24:01] I have a final question, I don't know if any of the other committee members, but my last

[1:24:07] question, hopefully we can move on. Again, my personal experience. I'm not suggestive

[1:24:15] that this is necessarily true across the board, but it's counterintuitive to think that

[1:24:24] Jacketed bullets are stopped by, excuse the graphic nature, but intestines and guts if you will,

[1:24:34] that it's usually hard bone matter and other parts of the animal. Oftentimes the opposite

[1:24:41] side capers skin is what actually ends up stopping that projectile. Do we have reason to believe that

[1:24:52] It's common for guts to stop project that.

[1:25:01] I don't think so, Mr. Chairman, as you're probably aware, there are rounds of ammunition that are specifically designed to fragment their use in defense, and they're completely different from what would be used to hunt.

[1:25:15] And if bullets fragmented by their nature, there'd be no reason to specially design bullet that did that.

[1:25:23] Yes, representative Craig and we're taught to properly

[1:25:27] trying to take an animal, which means you don't shoot it, and that's maybe a California they do.

[1:25:38] I just have a comment, it's not quite related to this, but it isn't a way.

[1:25:43] We have thousands of raptors dying yearly by flying into wind power generating facilities across the west.

[1:25:49] And yet our government gives these industries a pass even on endangered species.

[1:25:55] So I have a really hard time saying, you know, on one hand, we forgive it and on the other hand, we don't.

[1:26:02] So.

[1:26:04] All right.

[1:26:05] Gentlemen, thank you very, very much.

[1:26:07] I appreciate your appearance.

[1:26:08] Thank you.

[1:26:10] And with that, we're going to move on to ODF and W fee proposals.

[1:26:15] Like to call forward once again, please Roy Elliker and Debbie Colbert.

[1:26:21] Thank God I won't go to the parkour here.

[1:26:25] I'm here in just a minute.

[1:26:31] No one mentioned that was a variation.

[1:26:34] Yeah, I know.

[1:26:37] Was this the gallery?

[1:26:39] No, no, no, no.

[1:26:43] I don't think so.

[1:26:46] I don't know.

[1:26:48] I don't know.

[1:26:54] Is that director, you know how to clear a room?

[1:27:07] Mr. Chair for the record, shall I weigh second our shaggle?

[1:27:11] Yeah, maybe just a second.

[1:27:26] And just to help you and to help me, if we can do your two of you in 15 minutes would be great.

[1:27:42] Chair, I think we can do that.

[1:27:43] Thank you.

[1:27:44] Chair, Mr. Chair, once again for the record, Roy Alaker, Director of the Oregon Department of Fish Wildlife,

[1:27:49] on my right to miss Debbie Colbert, our Deputy for Administration also with the Oregon Department

[1:27:54] Fish and Wildlife. We do have a short PowerPoint here to go through what's been requested

[1:28:00] by this committee as our 2015 Hunting and Fishing License Feb Proposals, and we can get started on

[1:28:07] that right away. And the report's going to start, and I'm going to finish. Thank you.

[1:28:12] Just to the committee was interested in talking about our 2015 paper proposals, but just to give a

[1:28:18] a little bit of context to the work we've been doing on those V proposals.

[1:28:22] This is our agency request budget for 2015-17.

[1:28:27] As you can see, it's quite the mix of federal funds,

[1:28:31] other funds, general fund, and lottery as we've proposed.

[1:28:35] But as a kind of context for the discussion of our recreational fees,

[1:28:41] You can also see that, even though it's a mix of funding, those funds that flow from hunters and anglers is actually pretty large.

[1:28:54] Of the federal funds we receive almost a third of those federal funds are because of the past through from the federal government of exercise taxes on sporting gear and ammunition and other items.

[1:29:07] And then in our other funds, it's about $100,000,000,000 out of the $150 million

[1:29:13] of other funds we receive is directly the sale of recreational licenses and tags.

[1:29:20] So it's a pretty important piece as we build our budget for your consideration is our

[1:29:25] fee proposals.

[1:29:27] And again, just to set some context for what we will be discussing in 2015, we our last fee

[1:29:35] proposal was approved by the 2009 legislature, and it adjusted our recreational or occupational

[1:29:42] and our commercial licenses and tags, and it was effective in January 2009, 2010.

[1:29:50] At that time, we made a commitment to our stakeholders and to the legislature that we would

[1:29:54] those revenues last six years and that has been our typical cycle where we

[1:30:00] Do you seek your increments on our fee adjustments? So 2013-15, the budget that we're in right now is essentially the end of that six year period and we are tracking to meet our commitment to make it the six years as we had promised to our stakeholders and our customers.

[1:30:17] As we look forward into the next six year horizon, we are looking at having less carryover or less reserves or savings moving into the next six year period for a number of reasons.

[1:30:30] Over the six years that we've been operating under our 2010 fee schedule, we've really seen

[1:30:37] lower than originally projected revenues, especially in the area of non-residents.

[1:30:43] It's about 6% lower in terms of participation in revenue for non-residents than what we had predicted in 2009

[1:30:52] when we brought the proposal to the legislature.

[1:30:55] We also, over the course of the six years, there have been fun shifts where, for example,

[1:31:00] general fund would be taken out of the budget and instead we would be using licensed

[1:31:07] dollars.

[1:31:07] So, again, that shortened some of our reserves moving into this next six-year period.

[1:31:13] This last biennium in 1315, we've had higher than what we had originally projected in terms

[1:31:18] of some personnel costs.

[1:31:20] And then it would be no surprise to you that we've also had a lot less interest earning on carryover funds over the course of these six years because of the economy.

[1:31:32] We have been working on a combination of strategies to plan our entire budget requests, and it really relies on a number of strategies, including proposed adjustments to our recreational commercial licenses and tags.

[1:31:46] And that's what we were going to talk to you about today.

[1:31:49] We've been working essentially for about eight months with our stakeholders.

[1:31:53] We have a pretty extensive public process for building our budget as a state agency.

[1:31:59] Even more so, this go around, given the fact that we were really looking at some significant

[1:32:05] changes in terms of how we were funded and proposing changes to fees.

[1:32:09] We have a large budget advisory committee.

[1:32:11] you'll be hearing from three members of that budget advisory committee on your panel today.

[1:32:17] No numerous meetings with them to design our fee proposal, gather their input.

[1:32:21] We also host a series of town hall meetings across the state together broader public input

[1:32:27] on what we're proposing.

[1:32:29] We've received numerous comments to our commission proposal.

[1:32:34] And then we also did, this was new to us, this go round.

[1:32:37] We sent out quite a few surveys to hunters and anglers, non-resident, and resident, to try to get even more input from our customers in terms of how we would design any fee adjustments, new concepts that they wanted us to look at, and ways that we could just be more customer friendly in terms of how we package hunting and angling licenses.

[1:32:58] So,

[1:33:02] we're going to share with you, members of the committee, our fee adjustment restructuring

[1:33:08] proposal here in just a second.

[1:33:11] We've tried very hard to incorporate all the public input that Deputy Director Cooper has

[1:33:16] talked about.

[1:33:18] We tried to look at strategic adjustments across the board rather than just, rather than just

[1:33:23] across the board increases.

[1:33:25] We look based on our survey results in particular, we're looking at a schedule of a

[1:33:32] incremental by a smaller amount rather than just just to flat out the increase and then maintain

[1:33:39] for six years. We're going to look to promote participation even more by using families and I'm

[1:33:44] going to show you how well you do that and some new licensed concepts. So new licensed concepts,

[1:33:50] I want to cover with this committee because I think there'll be a lot of discussion about some of them.

[1:33:56] So some of you may know that last session, the legislature passed a bill that allowed us

[1:34:01] To move to selling hunting and fishing licenses. I'm not just an annual basis, but also three year basis or five year basis. So we're going to have

[1:34:11] We're going to roll that out this year for 2016. I'm sorry for 2016 after this let's say session and

[1:34:20] It's going to sell we're going to have license available in one year three year and five year increments

[1:34:26] By having people buy three and five year licenses that really helps what they call the churn in other words

[1:34:31] probably about as many as 40% of all licensed buyers don't apply to licenses every single year.

[1:34:38] They tend to buy one they want to go hunting fishing but that may not be every 12 months.

[1:34:43] So when you have someone step up and buy three new licenses or five of your license,

[1:34:47] you're not working very hard to get them to make sure they buy license next year.

[1:34:51] They're already signed up. It's a sweet deal in some ways for us. And in some states,

[1:34:55] they've already moved to this multi-year concept. They've already seen a change

[1:34:59] and

[1:35:00] And see the impact that's making to the positive for revenues. The Pioneer License, you're going to have a lot to discuss about this, because right now, where is the support in that, or I believe, over 65, and I've lived here 50 years, get a free, hunting and fishing license. And that's been an effect for May decades. However, because of the way the federal government distributes the exercise tax revenue, Debbie talked about, from the sale of hunting.

[1:35:30] fishing ammunition, marine gasoline, boats, other hunting fishing accessories. When we give

[1:35:36] that free license, it kind of just qualifies us with that license to get the federal revenue.

[1:35:44] We could normally get by charging something for it. So by charging very minimal fees, maybe

[1:35:50] $6, we're going to turn around and gain equivalent of another $14 a federal money through the

[1:35:59] But when we ran it through our survey with the exception of the folks already holding

[1:36:05] Pioneer licenses most folks were looking forward to Pioneer licenses said they'd be

[1:36:09] wanting to pay a small fee particularly if it kept you overall price-flying fishing licenses low.

[1:36:14] But I'm sure we'll have a lot of discussion about that in this next session.

[1:36:18] We're going to be looking for some unique fishing opportunity raffles.

[1:36:21] We're going to look for a premier hunt series for Deer and Alka.

[1:36:23] I'll move right to these Mr. Chair. I know in the instant time.

[1:36:26] And another thing is that we're thinking of adding an additional fee for folks fishing in the ocean.

[1:36:32] And that comes about because some of our ocean fisheries, whether it's tuna, whether it's halibut, whether it's a bottom fish,

[1:36:39] more and more increasingly we have more work to do to ensure we can have those fisheries.

[1:36:45] No fisheries in particular wants more information and data about harvest and about catch and how we match those fisheries.

[1:36:53] that comes across us to do all that work and collect that data, and so right now those

[1:36:58] ocean fisheries are being supported by general license fees from everybody that goes fishing.

[1:37:03] What we were thinking is for folks that do that kind of ocean fishing, maybe have them pay

[1:37:07] a little more of a fee upfront to help support those specific expenses that come with keeping

[1:37:13] those fisheries open and robust.

[1:37:17] I'm very proud of this concept because we're going to make it even simpler for families

[1:37:21] young kids to go hunting and fishing and shell fishing in Oregon because here's the deal.

[1:37:26] 10 bucks. If you have any children or grandchildren between 10 and 17, for 10 bucks you're

[1:37:32] going to buy one license for them. They're going to be able to hunt. They're going to be able to

[1:37:36] fish. They're going to go crabbing. Go razor-clamming. That's it. One time feed 10 bucks each year.

[1:37:43] It's going to apply to resident kids and non-resident kids. Columbia endorsement,

[1:37:47] and Ocean Dorson would be included, no additional fee there,

[1:37:51] because of some of the federal requirements on waterfowl and upland birds.

[1:37:55] Something called a hip, which tells you know very well what is,

[1:37:58] which is that harvest information program.

[1:38:00] We were trying hard to have no cost for waterfowl and upland birds,

[1:38:05] but it got so confusing.

[1:38:06] We had to go with the reduced cost on that.

[1:38:08] But the bottom line is to be no increase on the juvenile storage pack,

[1:38:11] which provides all kinds of tags on attorneys for total of $55.

[1:38:14] And it's very popular among young families, not in fish a lot.

[1:38:19] And then on top of that, we're just going to make it very simple for the $10 fee for whatever.

[1:38:24] If your kids want to go on and fish in 10 bucks, you're there.

[1:38:27] Right there.

[1:38:29] Here's an example of some of the adjustments we're proposing, again, these will be coming

[1:38:33] to the committee for some discussion I am sure as well as ways and means, which will lead to the

[1:38:37] discussion.

[1:38:39] You can see overall, like in a hunting license, it's a $5 increase over a bout or, yeah,

[1:38:44] a little less than that. About about a $5 increase through 2020, not very much of an increase,

[1:38:50] frankly, about the price of applying a beer, and if you're Portland, maybe a little less than

[1:38:54] applying a beer. Control-hunt apps, for those who use that big game hunters, know that those are

[1:39:00] the applications that people file to apply to go big game hunting in the state. One of the lessons

[1:39:06] we learned back in O'Nine is that when we substantially raised the cost of these applications,

[1:39:13] Is that hunters pretty much let us know that was the worst thing to have done that was their number one complaint about the fee package

[1:39:21] You know nine is that we raised the application fee for them to apply for different pick-aimons

[1:39:27] So we learned something from that and in this proposal, you'll see there's no change

[1:39:32] No change in control on applications and we went out to the public forums and talked to hunters

[1:39:38] They were very supportive of that and then you can kind of pick and choose some of these things

[1:39:44] And the wildlife side, hunting side, increases not as much on the fishing side, for instance

[1:39:49] on the Angling Tag and the fishing license a little bit more of an increase because, frankly,

[1:39:56] for the inorgan, two thirds of our costs and two thirds of our program.

[1:40:01] With all the work we do on salmon, all the work we do on green fisheries, all the work we do on the side of a trout and other species, we really have a department heavy to fisheries, and of course that comes to the real cost with all the monitoring and the dangerous species issues in the Columbia River, coho, pull trout, for instance, those kinds of things.

[1:40:22] So one of the things that we're doing is kind of a marketing play this year is we're going

[1:40:26] after what we call the Trial 365, because in Oregon you can fish somewhere for Trial 365 days

[1:40:32] a year, last dates don't have quite as large opportunities for this, and so we're using this

[1:40:39] little bit to start to tell people perhaps to change in license fee, but at $38 per year

[1:40:44] you just want to go Trial Fishing, that's $2.38 on the average trip, and we based that

[1:40:50] is from all the survey work we did, the average working angler goes fishing about 16 times a year.

[1:40:57] And so when you break down a $38 license fee, that's $2.38 every time they go out fishing.

[1:41:03] Which if anyone here's been fishing lately, $2.38.

[1:41:07] And that's probably one of your least amount of your costs when you go fishing for a day.

[1:41:11] And if you go to Booye 10, that's a cup of coffee.

[1:41:15] So that's one of the way we're looking at this.

[1:41:17] Go ahead Debbie.

[1:41:18] I want to move to this.

[1:41:19] That wraps it up.

[1:41:20] Mr. Chair, Vice Chair, we know we've got a lot of issues here today, and we just want

[1:41:25] to give that overview.

[1:41:26] I don't have lots of discussion in this community.

[1:41:29] Vice Chair, also below.

[1:41:32] By noon, some more time.

[1:41:33] When I turn 65, that you would figure a way to get money from me from my

[1:41:38] pioneer license, Roy.

[1:41:40] The other thing is, I suggest that the commission,

[1:41:43] or the department itself, look into the State of Pennsylvania.

[1:41:46] They have quite a graph that, when they have been raised for fees, last people had

[1:41:52] 100 fish.

[1:41:53] When they would lower fees, more people had 100 fish.

[1:41:57] We're eventually going to head for a train wreck in this state if we're not careful because

[1:42:01] you're going to get it at the point where the only people are going to be able to go hunting

[1:42:04] of a family of four, it's going to cost them an arm and a leg and you can't do that to

[1:42:09] the work of people.

[1:42:13] I represent a creek right you know how I pioneer licenses are issued here. Yes, sir

[1:42:18] I think it's about 53,000 53,000 a year and that is going up as the as the population

[1:42:26] Asian fishermen so you can see where we're going on this. Yeah, represent a creek. I mean this 53,000 this year now in few years

[1:42:33] It probably easily be 60,000 and about half of those licenses. I'm not getting any federal exercise tax money for but it's it's

[1:42:45] I know, for instance, there's a lot of folks that are in the early 60s all looking forward to that Pioneer license, but

[1:42:52] a lot of information we're going to provide on that, but it's okay. We like to know what that's going to bring us. Yes, sir.

[1:42:59] We'll be able to do all that.

[1:43:01] Thank you. Mr. Director, I don't know whether it's just

[1:43:05] the members of this committee or whether it's age or what it is, but

[1:43:08] there's nothing to fear about given them a free go. I mean,

[1:43:12] You know, there's plenty left for the rest of the summer.

[1:43:17] Representative Witzett.

[1:43:18] Yes.

[1:43:19] I'm hearing from a lot of my constituents that they are giving up hunting and fishing

[1:43:24] because of the increase in licenses.

[1:43:26] And I was wondering if you're seeing a decrease over the last few years in licensing for hunting and fishing.

[1:43:33] I mean, you know your numbers from one year to the next.

[1:43:36] Is it down or up?

[1:43:37] Mr. Chair, Representative Witzett.

[1:43:39] In the last five years, I'm happy to say it's not been going up, but it's not been going down.

[1:43:46] There's been relatively flat. We have all those numbers we can provide to you about numbers of

[1:43:51] hunting and fishing, but it's not been a significant decrease at all. It's been relatively flat.

[1:43:58] We have about 650,000 fishermen, about 280,000 hunters, generally, but we'll provide you that

[1:44:04] information here this week. And you can take a look at yourself.

[1:44:08] And I just want to say that if I am doing my math, right, your fishing licenses, it's a 25% increase through 2020 and a 40% on your angling tag.

[1:44:21] Just to break it through, what percentage is our versus just looking at some money there?

[1:44:27] Sure.

[1:44:28] Mr. Chair, what's it?

[1:44:29] Thank you.

[1:44:30] I'm sure there'll be lots of discussion on that.

[1:44:32] because a lot of discussion individually and ways and means and probably missed to make you.

[1:44:39] Thank you both very very much.

[1:44:41] Thank you again Mr. Chair.

[1:44:42] Thank you.

[1:44:44] I'd like to call up please stand steel L. Elkins and Joe Rollator.

[1:45:00] Please. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the record, I'm Al Alokins, representing the Oregon Contrast Association.

[1:45:06] Come here today to talk about the T and C, O D F, W. We were an R, a member of E-back, the external budget

[1:45:17] advisory committee that you saw on the board. When they first met this year, we had the understanding

[1:45:25] We came to the realization that there was going to be a request for the fees increases.

[1:45:32] During that time, they started the town hall meetings and a number of our members attended those.

[1:45:40] We started getting a great deal of feedback against most of those things that you saw up there in relation to hunting.

[1:45:50] I'm sure you've all had to do with the press on the pioneer license.

[1:45:53] we did as well. So during that time, the board, through phone calls and emails from the

[1:46:02] membership, decided that they could not support FE increase and we testified in front of them.

[1:46:11] The Oregon Hunter Association could not support FE increase.

[1:46:15] What we heard a lot was that people were dissolution about hunting.

[1:46:20] They also wrapped up fishing in that scenario as well, and many commented on that they were

[1:46:28] tired of paying for hunting trips and not having the opportunity to even see wildlife

[1:46:34] let alone hunt it.

[1:46:36] So that was the theme that we saw in the emails and the phone calls.

[1:46:42] And to sum it all up, we got a phrase that stuck with us as hunters do not want more

[1:46:49] days in the field, but more wildlife in the field.

[1:46:53] And that in essence said, it gives you the mindset of what these people were saying.

[1:46:59] So what's next, during the e-back process, a lot of information was given to us.

[1:47:06] And if I'm going to say anything today that you're going to remember, I hope it's this,

[1:47:10] that we have to have a policy discussion at some time here in this building about the field

[1:47:19] biologists who we as an association support 100 percent are number one priority every legislation

[1:47:27] I've legislated session I've been with this group is to keep the field biologists in the field

[1:47:32] and to keep the game enforcement officers in the field but something that I learned that was just

[1:47:37] absolutely astounding to me, was that 50% to 60% of the daily work of biologists now

[1:47:46] includes analysis of agency to agency work, getting including analysis plans at the county

[1:47:53] state and federal levels that impact wildlife and habitat. So this is not your mom and dad's

[1:48:01] on grandpa's ODFW that we're all used to. These are not the biologists. These are the biologists

[1:48:09] that now have a tremendous amount of work to do in addition to the 50 to 60 percent of time

[1:48:17] that they have to spend on planning analysis of plants. So our question is, what's paying for this?

[1:48:27] Well, we know the answer now, but we'd like to see perhaps a discussion on who should be paying for it and how should they be paying for it?

[1:48:38] And when you look at 50%, the 60% of an individual's time, that takes a lot of time away from wildlife and habitat management,

[1:48:46] that we think we are paying for, and that we think we should be getting out of our dollars, and I would conclude with that.

[1:48:55] So we would like to have the board would like to have that discussion publicly.

[1:49:00] I've never been discussed publicly.

[1:49:02] I don't think.

[1:49:03] I think, thank you very much.

[1:49:06] Isn't it?

[1:49:06] And if we could, if you can five minutes maximum, four minutes, we might even have time

[1:49:12] for questions.

[1:49:12] She knows you well.

[1:49:13] She knows you well.

[1:49:15] Chair of it.

[1:49:17] My chair has to go on committee members.

[1:49:20] So I'm curious what's my outfit?

[1:49:22] I think there's a consensus across the sport user group, both in the English.

[1:49:25] the hunting, the trapping community, that we might not have avoided the train wreck, or if we

[1:49:34] have or anything entering the tunnel. And it's a dark tunnel. 34 million potential in the

[1:49:40] red, up to 132 million, potentially in the red in the next six years, if we don't either

[1:49:46] shore up the tracks or see what the base problem is. Base problem is participation.

[1:49:51] South Hunters, fishers and other users participating, the economic model doesn't work.

[1:49:57] It's the North American Wildlife History.

[1:50:00] Conervation. It's based on a user pay user play scenario. Every action that we take, and I have a newspaper article

[1:50:10] that I wanted to bring just to refer to myself here is commission vote today on limiting

[1:50:14] hatchery salmon. Each one of those actions is death by a thousand cuts to a rate-paying

[1:50:20] public. So what we have to do is have that discussion. Get back to our core values. Understand

[1:50:28] as this is so apropos for where we're at.

[1:50:32] We used to go deer hunting in eastern Oregon,

[1:50:35] and now we go deer camping, and elk camping.

[1:50:39] There is a root problem.

[1:50:41] It can't be solved by anything other than

[1:50:44] looking at those programs that will support

[1:50:46] our core user groups.

[1:50:48] Other states are doing it.

[1:50:50] Our recent survey that OVFW participate in

[1:50:53] that they say is not a good survey,

[1:50:55] but it was conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

[1:50:58] under a grant with what the ODFW said Oregon has lost 18 and 17% of its hunters and

[1:51:05] anglers within the last five years respectively.

[1:51:09] I don't know whether the surveys accurate, but it's certainly out there and published.

[1:51:14] Thank you.

[1:51:15] Thank you very much.

[1:51:16] Mr. Chair, my name is Jill Rollator.

[1:51:19] I live in Walport.

[1:51:21] I've been involved in this sort of thing, fish and wildlife funding for a long time, 30 years

[1:51:27] So, and I'm not going to talk about all the specifics of the percentages of who pays what

[1:51:34] and where it comes from, but I want to talk about a little bit about the history of how we

[1:51:39] funded wildlife management in North America, and we developed informal policy in about the

[1:51:49] 1330s, where we set for seven principles, and I can't remember them all up to top of

[1:51:56] my head.

[1:51:57] But basically, the wildlife belongs to everybody, and that it's hunting and fishing, implied,

[1:52:07] is democratic, which means anybody who wants to hunt and fish can hunt fish.

[1:52:11] It's governed by laws that are set by the governments and the places where we hunt fish.

[1:52:17] And sort of unstated was that the consumers, Fishermen and Hunters, would pay for the management of everything.

[1:52:29] The, you know, us guys that, that haunted and fished would buy tags like the Duck Stamp that came out in 1934.

[1:52:38] And also, we pay exercise taxes on the hunting and additional equipment that we buy through the

[1:52:45] Pippman Robertson Act that went into effect in 1937.

[1:52:49] And the Dingo Johnson purchased restoration act that went into effect in 1950.

[1:52:55] And anywhere from 10 to 12% of the wholesale value of fishing and hunting equipment is collected by the federal government

[1:53:02] and then re-distributed back to the states for Fisheries Management.

[1:53:09] And just to cut this short, there's a discussion going on about taking the general fund

[1:53:16] and parceling the Gen ODF and WS budget and just converting that conservation.

[1:53:23] And taking the hunting and fishing fees and saying,

[1:53:27] you get to manage their milk with that money.

[1:53:31] And I participated in that conversation for a while, but now I kind of think that maybe it's not a real good

[1:53:37] conversation for us to have, because we've just kind of changed the North American

[1:53:42] conservation model to, now we've got to figure out a way, so the other people that are

[1:53:51] enjoying wildlife without eating it and pay. And I think that all of us who hunt and fish are

[1:53:59] to pay as much as we can for my house myself you know I get a tremendous amount of

[1:54:06] pleasure out of a 50 or 60 dollar charge for my my fishing licenses and it's a

[1:54:14] lot less than going and playing a day's goal but that's just me and I don't have

[1:54:20] the same demands economically some other people have so I just want to leave you with

[1:54:26] idea that that is that if we all as hunters and fishermen had not have paid for fisheries

[1:54:34] and wildlife management that restored deer and elk populations in Oregon, we wouldn't

[1:54:40] have to have the argument about the wolves because the wolf didn't have anything to eat.

[1:54:46] If we had no body gone and paid for really good scientific management, if we had to help those animals

[1:54:56] in public trust and if we have no loud everybody.

[1:55:00] I think to have access to those animals. So my lecture is over and as the as the as the session goes on, you all know that it worked with me that I really like to have the sort of extended esoteric discussions about about these things before we make decisions and so I hope that you follow follow that model and we have that discussion and that we come up with an equitable way to

[1:55:29] continue to fund really good vision violence. Thank you. Thank you very much. Vice

[1:55:37] Chair, us, we'll go. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Real briefly here. We mentioned

[1:55:41] we we kind of touched on people doing work in our biologists doing work for other

[1:55:48] people, other organizations, other departments, probably state departments, so on and so forth.

[1:55:54] And county, state and maybe even federal, I'm not sure. The one thing that I think we do

[1:55:59] lack in the commit on not the commission but the department. Where's the accountability for these

[1:56:08] biologists that we have? What exactly do they do? What exactly do they produce? If we have someone

[1:56:16] doing 60% of his work or her work for some county, why don't we back charge in the county?

[1:56:29] Why are

[1:56:29] because if they didn't, if they didn't grab those biologists,

[1:56:34] by going, they didn't have to hire somebody.

[1:56:38] Mr. Chair, Representative, ask of all, that's our question.

[1:56:42] It's kind of a vicious circle, and we want to see if there was

[1:56:45] some way we can break that and get them reimbursed for what they're doing.

[1:56:50] About what they're doing now, we have a very good working relationship

[1:56:54] with our, the biologists through our 25 chapters,

[1:56:57] and they attend all our monthly meetings.

[1:56:59] and so we know what the work they're doing and we know how hard they work to maintain the

[1:57:04] wildlife and the habitat. But we also know all of the additional things that they're called to

[1:57:08] do. So that's, we just want to get some questions answered this all. Representative Creer and then

[1:57:29] the year.

[1:57:30] There are 64 and a half days in the year.

[1:57:32] I'm going to start pro-right in this thing.

[1:57:37] Representative Reardon.

[1:57:38] I'm just curious.

[1:57:40] I didn't capture how much all the increases were on the fees, but to one I remember it was

[1:57:45] like $5 over five years or something.

[1:57:49] Didn't seem like a whole lot to me, but I can't judge how that might affect somebody

[1:57:54] else's finances.

[1:57:55] But do you have any information through your various organizations that talks about how much the average hunter or fisherman

[1:58:03] facial person spends

[1:58:05] per year on their

[1:58:07] active recreational activities?

[1:58:10] Well, I think and I'm I'm I'm going obviously as how how big a deal is this?

[1:58:16] $5 your increase is if somebody's spending

[1:58:21] 50, 100, 200, whatever they spend a year.

[1:58:25] So I just wanted to help me put it in perspective.

[1:58:29] I'm Chair Whit, representative Reardon.

[1:58:31] It's a great question.

[1:58:33] In my pocket, I have over $250 of licenses and tags to hunt fish in Oregon.

[1:58:38] So we're a family.

[1:58:40] That can really mount up, especially in family in rural Oregon,

[1:58:43] where maybe the job isn't really what we classify in Portland is a family wage earning

[1:58:48] a job.

[1:58:49] So it does mount up, each little cost, and I'm an exception, I'm like Joe, you know, I

[1:58:57] hunt in fish a lot.

[1:58:58] So I'm very willing to pay, and I'm capable of paying.

[1:59:01] But we really do have to look at those who aren't who can't.

[1:59:05] Participations declining means that obviously rates are going to go up.

[1:59:11] And so it's difficult for many families, and you look at $2 here.

[1:59:17] $5 here. Pretty soon here of saying now. Do I do this? Or do I do that? And these are

[1:59:26] discretionary spending. It's a recreational discretionary spending. And that's always

[1:59:30] the first to go.

[1:59:34] Hopefully I helped. Mr. Chair representative, there are studies out there

[1:59:39] that show how much our volumes are spending on hunting and fishing and is broken down

[1:59:44] county and the revenues are generated through business local businesses things of that

[1:59:50] nature that really make you become aware of what how much families are participating in these

[1:59:55] sports. So we'd be glad to get that information. I love to see you.

[2:00:01] The one thing I will state though that if they don't buy the license, they won't do the rest. They won't go out and buy the equipment. They won't go out and do this. They won't travel. They won't, you know, everything comes to a halt.

[2:00:17] Chair, what Representative is called, that's very fair. On the average, Oregon, we'll spend

[2:00:23] $1,200 a year on his money. And it's about what it works out when he's a licensed buyer,

[2:00:30] he'll spend additional $1,200. This is not really a cheap sport and it's difficult. And so,

[2:00:37] you know, that's where I think incremental increases actually impact.

[2:00:42] Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would also like to get the information regarding counties

[2:00:49] in particular, but I've got to say this, you know, and I've lived in my house since

[2:00:54] 77. My block. There is probably one other person on my block right now who goes fishing.

[2:01:03] No one else, no one does hunting, as far as I can tell. That was not the case when I moved in.

[2:01:09] It was on a regular basis. The folks across the street for me, the other the families would go out and go hunting and fishing.

[2:01:17] Not big and it was not an issue of money. It was an issue of culture, of this is what they did.

[2:01:25] And the fact is right now, that's not what's going on.

[2:01:29] I mean, I always joke that I don't have any farms in my district. I have a lot of chickens.

[2:01:35] And I do have a lot of chickens, the latest poster that was put on the telephone pole, the other day was found white chicken.

[2:01:46] But, uh, so Peppot Landy is not too far from reality.

[2:01:52] What was this name?

[2:01:53] I don't know.

[2:01:54] They didn't have a name for it.

[2:01:55] No, it's that found.

[2:01:56] There was no one asking for white chicken.

[2:01:59] My point is that there's a culture change that has taken place.

[2:02:03] The average Oregonian, or certainly in Portland, I think, would have you would have found

[2:02:11] several hunters and fishing people on my block 30 years ago, 20 years ago.

[2:02:16] That is not the case anymore.

[2:02:19] And so the money that's coming in is coming in from a much smaller group of people than

[2:02:24] we used to have.

[2:02:25] And in rural communities, that's part of the culture.

[2:02:29] That's exactly what you do.

[2:02:31] But in Portland, in the metro area,

[2:02:35] the folks who are moving into the metro area

[2:02:36] are not coming from the rural communities of Oregon.

[2:02:40] They're coming in from outside the state.

[2:02:42] And they're coming in from urban areas

[2:02:44] that are not interested as interested or knowledgeable

[2:02:47] about fishing and hunting.

[2:02:48] So they don't even think about a license.

[2:02:50] In fact, I'd be willing to bet that if I went to talk

[2:02:53] most of the many of the folks in my district I would ask them how much a hunting license was they

[2:02:59] will want to know what a hunting license was. So that's something that we need to recognize

[2:03:06] that we have had a cultural change. We need to be able to support the folks who are continuing to

[2:03:11] do that and enjoy it. I don't do any hunting anymore. I don't do some fishing when I get a chance

[2:03:17] But we need to really understand that there has been a significant change, and we need to support the people who are still doing it in a way that there are also supports the ability for those biologists to do the research and to study and support them when they do the research even when it comes back the way that you may not want it to.

[2:03:37] very well said thank you Mr. Chair representative very well said thank you come what comes to my mind as he's

[2:03:46] OTFW did a survey and actually a study of the trends that you're talking about and it was fascinating and I'll see if I can get that for you to leave that

[2:04:05] I'm trying to, I'm trying to draw conclusions from what you stated and my mind's going

[2:04:13] to 1000 miles an hour here trying to get my arms around it.

[2:04:18] But I think you're suggesting that we do

[2:04:25] fish and wildlife management.

[2:04:27] It's not fish and wildlife management.

[2:04:29] We are managing hunting and fishing.

[2:04:32] Human populations of hunters and fishers.

[2:04:35] That's what we are managing.

[2:04:36] I think is what you were telling me.

[2:04:38] And I think what you were telling me was

[2:04:41] is that we sort that out by price.

[2:04:45] And that by logical extension, what all of you said was that because of that price,

[2:04:56] I, who can afford it, is representative Esquivel just.

[2:05:00] Said, get to go out and deer camp in elk camp. But my experience, if we keep to this model,

[2:05:13] is really not that different from the person who we've priced out of the market, because they don't get to hunt or fish.

[2:05:19] And I don't get, I don't get to see the animals as, as, as, as Al was alluding to.

[2:05:28] And so by managing hunters and fishers by price, we have actually sacrificed the experience

[2:05:36] for those hunters and fishers, and we are not managing fish and wildlife.

[2:05:42] Now, if that's what you're telling me, then this begs for a pretty significant shift.

[2:05:56] Mr. Chair, I think for my own personal standpoint,

[2:06:03] when I was a kid, fish and while

[2:06:06] like management was hunting and fishing management, but that's not the case anymore.

[2:06:10] Now when you manage for hunting and fishing or the ability to hunt fish, you have to do a lot of other things.

[2:06:18] To do requirements for other laws, so you can hunt fish.

[2:06:23] We found out that there's science that we need to gather in order for us to have sustainable wildlife populations.

[2:06:31] And we've also started to understand that we need to manage in a holistic manner.

[2:06:36] that we can't manage metal arcs and then manage foxes separately that we need to have

[2:06:43] some kind of of overall management system.

[2:06:47] I think we're transition and this, my point was that the funding crisis is going to cause

[2:06:59] us to have a discussion as we transition into being able to pay for adequate science and

[2:07:09] management of all the species that live in Oregon. And that that's going to be very expensive.

[2:07:16] And that somehow, how are they going to say, well, we've had to pay for that. And the general

[2:07:22] public is saying, well, use our general funds for things that we want to send it on. And I think

[2:07:29] It's a horrible dilemma for us to go through, but I think this body, and you all have worked

[2:07:36] together for a year now, and so we all have a pretty good idea how you work.

[2:07:40] You've been capable of asking those questions, and we'd like to help you find answers to

[2:07:46] those questions.

[2:07:48] We're all getting kind of old, and we're not going to be here very long, and it'd be nice

[2:07:53] to leave a place where somebody wanted to go out and see if box could see if box.

[2:08:01] I am 15 seconds away from taking you up on your offer. You have 15 seconds to change your mind.

[2:08:10] I'm not seeing any of you leaving no doubt.

[2:08:15] I would like to ask the three of you to be to work with Beth to form a work room to find those answers.

[2:08:23] Thank you.

[2:08:24] We will. Thank you very much, sir.

[2:08:27] With that, thank you very much.

[2:08:29] Thank you.

[2:08:30] We need some help from some other folks that are interested in this, and so if we might add a few more people, we'd appreciate it.

[2:08:38] We have the power of draft here in this.

[2:08:45] Yes, the recruiters right outside the door, by the way. Thank you very much.

[2:08:51] Thank you, sir.

[2:08:53] With that, we're going to shift to a comprehensive

[2:08:55] predator control.

[2:08:57] And I'd like to call up, please, Ron Anglin and Scott

[2:09:00] Becksted.

[2:09:13] We'll see.

[2:09:14] Good afternoon, Chair Whit.

[2:09:15] Members of the committee, once again, Ron Anglin,

[2:09:17] wildlife division administrator.

[2:09:21] I do have a short PowerPoint presentation for you here

[2:09:26] that I thought I'd run through real quick.

[2:09:29] Again, being sensitive to your time.

[2:09:32] I'll kind of zip through some things.

[2:09:34] We do, and this is based on some of the input that we've received from you on what you were looking for today.

[2:09:40] We have had a lot of focus in the last few years on a Swedish species.

[2:09:45] Some of those we've been in front of this committee to discuss in the past,

[2:09:48] also in front of the Senate Environment Committee to discuss.

[2:09:54] We'll gloss over several of them right here,

[2:09:57] and then go into more detail on several of the other.

[2:10:00] You know, as you're all well aware, we've got very liberal citizens down on several of our species. We've done everything we can, holding price down on veritags, cover tags, and providing multiple opportunities for hunters, success rates on for our hunters on some of these species are not very high, and our ability to manage populations based on that is fairly limited.

[2:10:30] Wolves is your well aware and we've reported to you before our coming in our here in the state.

[2:10:36] We are initiating research in Northeast Oregon on the interaction of Wolves, Cougars,

[2:10:42] Dere and Elk, and looking at how all of that plays out as Wolves re-established themselves

[2:10:50] on the landscape of what that does to praise species and populations, and whether Wolves and Cougar

[2:10:58] predation is additive or compensatory.

[2:11:01] We've seen mixed results in some of the other states,

[2:11:04] and we want to make sure that we've

[2:11:06] got some really good information from Oregon

[2:11:08] that can inform us in management decisions

[2:11:11] as we move into the future.

[2:11:13] The following three, I'm going to touch on a little more detail.

[2:11:18] So we'll just go ahead and move into those.

[2:11:22] You're well aware of the discussions

[2:11:25] that we've been having on comrades.

[2:11:26] We are very involved in the lower Columbia East sand island discussions that the Corps of Engineers under taking the EIS, they're working on, we're part of.

[2:11:39] We have co-operator status in development of that EIS and in the various alternatives that they have in place.

[2:11:49] While we do support lethal management of comrades on East sand island, we've also made it very clear.

[2:11:54] we're not interested in tomorrow's being displaced into other coastal

[2:11:58] ester worries and worries and exasperating the problem we may have in

[2:12:04] some of those other ester worries. We've reported on the work that we've been

[2:12:09] doing in coastal ester worries, so I won't really go into a lot of detail here

[2:12:14] on this other than to say that because of the work that the course doing on

[2:12:19] the Columbia, we still are waiting for analysis of the stomach

[2:12:23] contents that we've collected for the telemook and also for the rogue and the

[2:12:30] Yampquah. We were denied a depernation permit for 2014 for the telemook. We

[2:12:36] hoped to have enough or have our information back in time to include that in our

[2:12:43] request for a depernation permit for the telemook in 2015. We've been able to do

[2:12:50] work based on the fact that you have provided this funding that we've been able to use as

[2:12:56] match with our federal funds to be able to conduct the research that we've been working on.

[2:13:04] What we've seen so far in the diet results in the telemook, 6% to 35% of the salmonids are being

[2:13:13] soon, in the diet of quamerons, we've got a multitude of species that results in about 1 to 4%

[2:13:23] of the out migrants annually coming out of the different river systems into the telemook.

[2:13:30] In the yum-quang, the row, the diet composition, the salmons is a little bit different than

[2:13:36] what we've seen so far in the telemook.

[2:13:38] the picture in the bottom right there is a pickle fish and that was

[2:13:44] completely contained inside the stomach of a quamerant so it was pretty

[2:13:50] much extended from the trachea all the way through to the bottom of the stomach and

[2:13:57] you know it's nothing small. I have no clue what a pickle fish is on the wildlife

[2:14:02] file just. But I'll I see what they're doing now. So it maybe Ed can tell you that when

[2:14:12] he's up here. So next I want to talk to you a little more detail about penipeds. We've

[2:14:21] had Robin Brown here in front of you in the past talking about the programs that we've got.

[2:14:27] You know, I'll just put in a plug that Oregon's penipet program is practically the only

[2:14:34] penipet program on the west coast.

[2:14:37] We are the leaders on providing scientific data and information to the U.S. Fish Wildlife

[2:14:42] Service and Neural Fisheries on sea lion seals and other penipet management and the decisions

[2:14:50] that are made in large part are due to the work that our shop does, our very small shop

[2:14:56] and does depend on ongoing funding, which will...

[2:15:00] We wrapped into our budget request that you'll see this winner.

[2:15:05] So, you know, we all know that penipeds were protected under the Marine Mammal Act back in the 70s.

[2:15:12] Since that point in time, we've seen substantial increases across the United States and the coastal areas of penipeds.

[2:15:20] We certainly have seen that here in the West Coast and did want to point out that there is no archaeological evidence that

[2:15:28] that Pinnapads ever went to either Slyle Falls on the Columbia or

[2:15:34] Alamut Falls and consumed Salmonets like they are today.

[2:15:39] That appears to be a learned behavior and it's something new that was never

[2:15:44] here historically.

[2:15:48] We've reported on some of this to you in the past again on consumption rates at

[2:15:53] the various sites.

[2:15:55] I think that the important part of this is that the work that we've been able

[2:16:00] to do on the Columbia is what led to our being able to get both hazing and removal of sea

[2:16:10] lions in the Columbia, and we also based on things that we're working on right now

[2:16:19] are looking at how we can provide the information necessary that would allow us to request

[2:16:27] for potential removal of sea lions at Willamut Falls.

[2:16:33] So there's a lot of work that's been going on.

[2:16:36] It's been ongoing for a lot of years

[2:16:38] and it's been pretty critical to our success

[2:16:42] and being able to move forward on different things.

[2:16:47] The last thing I want to touch on is Cougars.

[2:16:52] Certainly, we feel like we have a very robust

[2:16:55] cougar population in the state, you know, the question that really came up relative to cougars is in relation to deer and elk, and, you know, as you're well aware, deer and elk, and their survivability, their ability to expand is based on primarily on three different things.

[2:17:16] You know, it's habitat disease and and predation and what we've found here in the state is by and large habitat is not a limiting factor for elk.

[2:17:27] We may be starting to see some problems here in western Oregon, but by and large in eastern Oregon that hasn't been the case.

[2:17:34] We do feel that habitat is limiting for deer, especially in western Oregon for blacktail deer.

[2:17:40] You know, you've heard earlier on the Forest Health Initiative, some of the things being discussed.

[2:17:46] Certainly, we see on federal lands, there are not early successful stage habitats that are conducive for deer.

[2:17:53] And we've been working with forestry on trying to come up with ways to address that.

[2:17:59] From a disease standpoint, again, that's not at this point of problem for elk, but it is a concern for deer.

[2:18:05] And they are different diseases on both black-tailed deer and in mild deer that have

[2:18:12] cropped up that historically we never had to deal with.

[2:18:16] And now when drought conditions occur we end up with losses, not a way that we can actually

[2:18:22] treat those.

[2:18:23] And then finally, predation, there's really two ways that predation occurs and that's either

[2:18:27] human caused or that's from what we'll call an actual predator like a cougar.

[2:18:33] You know, in the human caused ones, the one I did put up here is Roadkill.

[2:18:38] There are significant number of deer in particular that are killed on Oregon's highways.

[2:18:45] Poaching is a problem.

[2:18:48] And we certainly, in our different state radiometry studies that we've done when we look

[2:18:54] at losses of our radio-collar animals, we've documented up to 19 percent of those losses

[2:19:00] have been as a result of poaching, and in the most recent one, it was the same, or virtually

[2:19:07] the same as the amount of losses that occurred from Prudation primarily to Cougars.

[2:19:15] We've had historical studies on deer and elk that have been in that 15 to 20 percent range

[2:19:20] on poaching.

[2:19:22] Legislature has helped out or tried to help out with increased penalties, and one of the

[2:19:29] things that we have identified is high road densities and access to animals is really contributing

[2:19:36] to the ease of people being able to go out and poach.

[2:19:41] When we find poached animals, our radio-collar animals, they are not half mile away from

[2:19:47] a road.

[2:19:48] They're right next to a road.

[2:19:49] And in some areas with the road densities that we have, it makes it very hard for those

[2:19:54] animals to get away and not be easily accessible from somebody.

[2:20:00] That's got a vent for poaching. Cutting seasons, the other way that we can see that I'm going to term

[2:20:08] predation, you know, we influence populations through our hunting seasons, certainly whether

[2:20:14] their damage hunts or their population level hunts, we can manipulate populations up and down with

[2:20:21] what we do. Primarily through our cow harvest, not through bull or buck harvest, but through cow or

[2:20:26] harvest is how we manipulate populations.

[2:20:31] The final thing relative to

[2:20:32] predation is what happens from critters on the ground. Cougar predation it occurs.

[2:20:42] And we certainly, you know, we've been a leader in the West on our research relative

[2:20:47] to Cougar Management over the course of the last 25 years in documenting predation rates

[2:20:53] and documenting interaction with the cougar and deer and elk and influencing populations.

[2:21:02] And, you know, we certainly, as you're well aware, and you've heard from us before, we don't manage cougars.

[2:21:09] At this point in time, you know, the amount of hunting that occurs is pretty minimal, amount of harvest that occurs is pretty minimal.

[2:21:16] We don't manage coogers as a big game animal to the same level that we manage during elk.

[2:21:23] And we've been working towards getting the tools set in place that would allow us to do that,

[2:21:29] being able to set management objectives, being able to refine population objectives.

[2:21:35] And quite frankly, I think we're getting very, very close that we can start

[2:21:39] We're creating some of that stuff out and start setting what we would turn to be population objectives for coogers, similar to what we do for deer and elk.

[2:21:50] And some of our research that just was wrapped up, and I was hoping we'd have more time I'd be able to touch on that today.

[2:21:56] We've got some ways now that we feel we can come in and make population estimates at the unit level.

[2:22:04] They're expensive to do, but we feel like we've got some ways to do that.

[2:22:09] We're refining what that might mean, and when we update the cougar plan the next time,

[2:22:15] how we can trot that out in a way that would allow us to more effectively manage cougars.

[2:22:22] I wanted to show you some of the things that we've done.

[2:22:29] Can you put a wrap on this?

[2:22:32] Yes sir.

[2:22:32] time I've got two slides. Okay. So I wanted to touch real quick on the Heppner Management

[2:22:39] area where we implemented a Cougar target area where we wanted to test the effect of reducing

[2:22:45] the Cougar population and how an elk population would respond. You can see in this slide

[2:22:52] that the elk population, the green line, had been declining through time. Calf recruitment

[2:22:58] was declining with that. When we saw the population declining, we responded. We decreased

[2:23:05] hunting opportunity. We decreased antlerostags. We decreased bolt tags. At the same time,

[2:23:12] we saw some small increases, but really very little harvest of coogers. So we implemented a

[2:23:19] cougar target area where we went in and administratively removed cougars ourselves. Over a three-year

[2:23:26] period of time, we remove 58 cats. There were another 33 cats, 34 cats that were actually removed

[2:23:34] by hunters during the same time frame, a couple of those were also on damage complaints.

[2:23:42] And then we stopped the Cougar removal. And what we saw was the population responded in the

[2:23:47] green line. You can see that it came back up. We increased voltage.

[2:23:55] We increased some

[2:23:56] up,

[2:23:58] but now our camera crew is starting to decline again. And why is that? Well, as we all

[2:24:04] suspected, the Cougar population rebounded. So we've run some simulations on what that looks

[2:24:12] like. And we ran three different simulations our research unit did. And what we looked at with

[2:24:20] the bottom line here and the diamonds is what happens in a unit if you remove a whole bunch

[2:24:29] of coogers and there's no new coogers coming in. How long knowing that you only remove maybe

[2:24:35] 50% of the cats? How long would it take for that cat population to recover? And what we found was

[2:24:41] by year four, the cat population was starting to bounce back and by year six we were back to pre-removable

[2:24:49] levels so then we looked at what if we had low immigration levels coming in from adjacent

[2:24:55] units and then high immigration levels coming in from adjacent units.

[2:25:00] How soon would we expect to see the cougar population rebound assuming you had no more cougar removal?

[2:25:07] And it was anywhere from two to three years. So that also leads into the whole discussion on managing cougars and managing population.

[2:25:16] Similar to what we do with Derenelk, because certainly we could have more Derenelk than what we do.

[2:25:20] but socially, we look at habitat, we look at landowner tolerance for those numbers and we

[2:25:26] manage below what the carrying capacity is.

[2:25:28] We don't do that with coogers and what we need to set the stage for, and what we're setting

[2:25:33] the stage for is getting to the point where we can make those choices on, we want to manage

[2:25:38] coogers in conjunction with Derenelk and work for a broad range of values, recognizing we don't

[2:25:46] white coovers out, we want to maintain a healthy population of them, but in conjunction with other species.

[2:25:53] And I'm not going to run through all that.

[2:25:55] That's it.

[2:25:56] Thank you very much.

[2:25:58] Scott, welcome to our committee.

[2:25:59] Good to see you.

[2:26:00] Thank you.

[2:26:01] Chair Whit, members of the committee.

[2:26:03] For the record Scott Beckstead, Senior Oregon Director for the Humane Society of the United States.

[2:26:09] Also the Western Regional Director for the Humane Society of the United States.

[2:26:13] Here to speak on the issue of predators, and I share with, I sympathize with your time constraints

[2:26:23] when I took over as mayor of Walport.

[2:26:25] We had a long sad history of city council meetings that lasted till two in the morning, and

[2:26:30] my first order of business was to get those down to an hour and a half or less.

[2:26:33] So I'm going to try and make this very brief.

[2:26:38] I handed out in my material some biological information about our position on the effects of predators,

[2:26:48] on wildlife species and populations.

[2:26:52] I would like to add to that just a request that you, whenever you're looking at policy changes regarding predators,

[2:27:03] that you take into account evolving social trends and attitudes toward predators, and where

[2:27:11] we are now versus where we were, say, 50 or 60 years ago with respect to predators.

[2:27:17] The trend generally, and this is reflected in the fact that more and more of your constituents

[2:27:22] want predators protected and and moreover that is enhanced by the fact that

[2:27:33] predators, more than

[2:27:39] that's probably for me.

[2:27:44] The methods used on predators are methods that are not used on other wildlife species.

[2:27:54] These impacts of dogs, the use of bait, piles of bait and forest.

[2:27:59] Leg, steel, jawed, leg, whole traps, wires, snares.

[2:28:04] Large volume killing contests, especially involving coyotes, and springbearhants that

[2:28:09] leave baby cubs orphaned in the woods.

[2:28:12] Now the voters have already banned two of those methods, and nationwide, we're seeing these

[2:28:17] methods targeted by voters and by legislatures.

[2:28:19] And I'm not here to say that the Humane Society wants to ban Predator hunting.

[2:28:25] What I'm saying is that predators deserve the same basic level of respect as every other species.

[2:28:35] And when you see the kind of images on Facebook and social media and the Internet of what people do to predators more than they do to other wildlife species,

[2:28:47] What that does is it turns non-huntars into anti-huntars.

[2:28:54] And this conversation about decreasing populations of hunters and decreasing participation,

[2:29:01] if there was a greater respect, according to these species, there would be a lot less

[2:29:08] outrage.

[2:29:09] And that outrage is inevitably going to turn into policy, one way or the other.

[2:29:17] So, I've always said that if it weren't for coogers and wolves and sea lions, I'd probably

[2:29:24] have an existential crisis and wouldn't know what to do with myself, at least while I'm

[2:29:27] in that in this building.

[2:29:29] I guess we can add comrades to that list of roads, but the Humane Society is very proud to

[2:29:36] stand for these species, and we believe that they are and fairly scapegoated.

[2:29:39] And we are encouraging you as lawmakers, as policy makers, who care about wildlife, to

[2:29:45] take a kind approach that is balanced and fair and humane. Thank you for your time.

[2:29:50] Thank you very much. Burning questions.

[2:29:56] Gentlemen, thank you both very, very much.

[2:29:59] Like to call.

[2:30:00] All up, please,

[2:30:03] Joe Ricker, George Houston, in Steans Steel. And gentlemen, if you can help me, I have

[2:30:12] one more segment to do after you before 5 o'clock. So I'm doing what you can do to help me here, manage

[2:30:19] the time. Thank you.

[2:30:20] I've got to look to there.

[2:30:22] Great job.

[2:30:25] Chair, what members of the committee, I'm Joe Ricker.

[2:30:29] Chairman of the Oregon Hunters Association.

[2:30:31] Chairman of the Board, Oregon Hunters Association.

[2:30:33] I'm going to skip my first paragraph and go to the last three points that I want to make.

[2:30:38] The first one is a sage grouse.

[2:30:39] As you know, they are being considered for listing under the Indian Species Act.

[2:30:45] The listing of this bird will have an adverse impact on the economy of those regions of Oregon, where they occur.

[2:30:50] Oregon has been able to maintain a viable population of sage grass, but as indicated by

[2:30:57] studies, predation is a major factor in the decline of sage grass across the range.

[2:31:03] A recent study in northwestern Nevada, not far from home, indicates that over 88% of the

[2:31:11] there were monitored or depredated. In another study, done in a very recent past, they showed

[2:31:19] a 94% of the nest were depredated. The solution for these grass management is a balanced

[2:31:26] approach with management of habitat and depredation. That's very short of what I attended

[2:31:34] to say, so I move on to elk and deer. Elk and deer numbers of decline in many areas

[2:31:40] over the last several years.

[2:31:43] Their studies that indicate high predation densities explain the overwhelming majority of variations

[2:31:49] in cash to recruitment.

[2:31:53] Cougars kill about 1.55% more ungulants in summer than in winter because they are killing

[2:32:01] the elk calves and the deer fawns.

[2:32:04] This is needed to meet their nutritional requirements because I think the fact that more kills in summer

[2:32:15] results is that there's about 75% of the elk killed during the summer

[2:32:21] are in fact the calves and about 40% of the 6% of the deer that are killed in the summer are funds

[2:32:33] This flies in the face of the old wives tale that they kill the old and the inflamed

[2:32:39] ungulates.

[2:32:41] In fact, they're killing the future of the ungulates.

[2:32:47] In this lame study, it states that in the past 10 to 15 years, the calf to cow ratios

[2:32:53] at the end of the winter was below the level needed to maintain elk populations in

[2:32:59] with East Oregon.

[2:33:02] My next point, ODF and DOB implemented a Mueller initiative a few years ago,

[2:33:09] and we applaud them for doing so. You saw part of their results on what happens when you

[2:33:15] removed predators in a region.

[2:33:19] There's indications that this is not only the only unit

[2:33:22] of course, for a predator removal has assisted

[2:33:27] the deer populations, and I applaud them for doing that.

[2:33:32] All of the clients cannot be a contributed predation.

[2:33:36] However, predation management is as action

[2:33:39] that can and should be taken in the short term

[2:33:42] to assist in maintaining and enhancing wildlife numbers in Oregon.

[2:33:47] Sheriff, what that's about as quick as I can make it.

[2:33:50] You did an excellent job.

[2:33:51] Thanks for the help, truly appreciated.

[2:33:58] Mr. Whitman, members of the committee, my name is George Huston, I'm the President

[2:34:03] of the Oregon Chapter of the Foundation for North American Wild Cheat.

[2:34:07] Welcome.

[2:34:08] Thank you.

[2:34:09] This morning, when the sun came up in the state of Oregon, in Wala County, we had 12

[2:34:15] heards of Rocky Mountain big orange sheep, a real success story. Likewise, we had 32

[2:34:22] heards, we have 32 heards of California big horns in the state of Oregon today. The staff

[2:34:30] and the employees, the bios on the ground in different parts of the state are doing really,

[2:34:39] really good work for Big Horn sheep and the places they have a tea.

[2:34:46] We've got a really good opportunity for hunters that we want to see continue.

[2:34:53] Interestingly enough, by 1912, there were no California Big Horn sheep in the state.

[2:35:01] In 1954, ODFW went to British Columbia and brought back 22 head of California Big Horn sheep and they took

[2:35:14] them to heart mountain national handle refuge in southeastern Oregon and they released them. Did

[2:35:21] absolutely a superb job. By 1992 we had 600 individuals sheep on heart mountain. Fast forwarding

[2:35:32] to last year we have 168.

[2:35:37] It appears that Cougar Prudation on the heart mountain national

[2:35:44] antelope refuge is reducing the amount of big orange sheep markedly. We'd like to see the

[2:35:54] agency look really, really hard at the Cougar Prudation Challenge there.

[2:36:00] And once again, get into the Prudation Management process.

[2:36:07] It's important that we consider managing the Prudation rather than eliminating the Prudation.

[2:36:15] It's got to be a balanced approach.

[2:36:17] We've got terrestrial aquatic and aerial predators in the state of Oregon to require our attention.

[2:36:26] All the counties require that kind of help from time to time.

[2:36:31] We need to have management objectives set.

[2:36:34] We need a balanced management process.

[2:36:38] We need projects on the ground to manage predators with metrics to match to help our rural economy.

[2:36:47] come back to where they used to be in times gone by. If you drive highway 101 and you start

[2:36:55] in a Lincoln City and just head north to our story and you go by the river drainages and you

[2:37:00] look at the little old places that are run down and close it used to be cafes and they used to

[2:37:06] serve meals every day to fishermen or hunters and you kind of wonder gee what it happened

[2:37:13] if they had more hunter opportunity or fisher opportunity in those locations to think things could change.

[2:37:20] I think maybe that's something we ought to consider.

[2:37:23] I appreciate the opportunity to testify today and would look forward to working with you folks in the future.

[2:37:30] George, let me get those figures again.

[2:37:33] Sometime in the 1990s, heart mountain we went sheet population.

[2:37:39] In 1992 from from zero in 1912 to 1954 when the agency transplanted the sheep from

[2:37:49] Weems Lake, British Columbia, 22 sheep by aggressive support of the animals on the ground.

[2:37:59] we had over 600 sheep by 1992. If you fast forward to today, we had 168 total sheep population

[2:38:13] on heart mountain last year.

[2:38:17] Production isn't the only challenge here. I'm not trying to paint

[2:38:21] that picture. But they need some help and we need to kind of look at that process and say,

[2:38:28] what can we do to swing in and make things once again balanced out.

[2:38:33] Thank you very much.

[2:38:38] Chair Whit, committee members, I want to make this really quick.

[2:38:40] I handed out a relatively lengthy handout that talks about what we really would like to see in Oregon.

[2:38:48] And the reason I'm going to make it quick is you have another really important discussion coming up.

[2:38:52] So if you don't take the time to read that, and what I would request is if you do have questions, please get a hold of this.

[2:38:58] We really are working on this issue daily, and I mean daily, it's a 7, 24, 7, almost, sometimes

[2:39:04] issue.

[2:39:05] It's not important to Oregon's future wildlife, we're not anti-predator.

[2:39:08] If there's a person who's a conservationist and honor, and says he's anti-predator, he's

[2:39:13] neither.

[2:39:14] In other words, management, professional, science-based management.

[2:39:19] With that, we'd like to see a policy, statewide policy administered by the Oregon Department

[2:39:25] I've directed policy by the legislature, however, and setting up a funding source and a review that allows us to have professional science-based management.

[2:39:34] Thank you.

[2:39:35] Thank you very much.

[2:39:37] Burning questions.

[2:39:39] Gentlemen, thank you.

[2:39:41] Truly appreciated.

[2:39:43] Thank you for helping out with the time factor as well.

[2:39:46] Call up next.

[2:39:47] Please, Bill Baki and Ed Bowles.

[2:39:50] So I'm on it stock transfer policy.

[2:40:08] Welcome to our committee, gentlemen.

[2:40:12] Thank you.

[2:40:16] Chairman Witt, and members of the committee, my name is Bill Bawke.

[2:40:20] I'm representing the Navy Fish Society.

[2:40:23] And we presented a concept to the committee and I believe that you have that in your position to look at developing a bill for controlling stock transfers of salmon and steelhead and other fish in the state of Oregon.

[2:40:37] And I want to address that the purpose for our concern and give you some scientific

[2:40:46] foundation for it, which I've also supplied.

[2:40:50] There's a lot of available, I only gave you a couple pages of it, but there are quotes

[2:40:55] from the scientific literature that are actually studied the issue and we're going

[2:41:01] way back to the 1930s has said that locally adapted salmon and steel at populations in order

[2:41:10] to maintain their abundance productivity, they need to be managed as an individual stock.

[2:41:18] And with that, what suggests is that you don't move fish from one watershed into another

[2:41:22] watershed.

[2:41:24] And the science behind that question is coming more and more clear all the time that if you're

[2:41:29] maintain the diversity in life history, diversity, and we are locally adapted animal that's adapting to

[2:41:36] continuous changes in the environmental circumstances both in the ocean as well as in fresh water,

[2:41:43] that those those fine-tune adaptations can be disrupted by the inclusion of naturally spawning

[2:41:52] stocks from another water jet, especially of more distant water jet.

[2:41:58] Or a hatchery fish that has been cultivated and released into a water jet

[2:42:03] to free this pond with a salmon of a wild origin, local locally adapted origin.

[2:42:11] The science is pretty clear and it's getting more clear all the time.

[2:42:15] The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Scientists have identified this as a problem.

[2:42:19] And in some cases, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has been very responsive and trying to solve that problem.

[2:42:26] Good example of that would be on the Clyde Comus River.

[2:42:30] The non-native summer steel head were released above North Park Reservoir.

[2:42:36] ODIFW scientists looked at that issue.

[2:42:40] Found that the winter steel head, which are listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act,

[2:42:45] are actually declining as a result.

[2:42:48] They were able to show us a result of releasing

[2:42:51] summer steel ad.

[2:42:52] Summer steel ad produced Juveniles.

[2:42:55] They competed with Wild's summer,

[2:42:57] our winter steel ad had Juveniles.

[2:43:00] And as a result of the production of wild winter steel ad

[2:43:04] decreased by about 50%.

[2:43:06] The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

[2:43:08] recognizing this problem removes the release of

[2:43:13] actually some are still above the dam, not below the dam, but above the dam, and they're

[2:43:17] no longer able to pass up the fishway to above the dam, and reserve that for a wild fish,

[2:43:23] sanctuary, and that population has begun to grow.

[2:43:26] So that's an example.

[2:43:27] Also on the Imnohan, a Grandrond River, once those such inuk were listed, they were going to

[2:43:32] plant a fish in the wildlife to a non-native system, and they went out and went to a local

[2:43:36] fruit stock.

[2:43:37] How they identify it's six different,

[2:43:40] springs, you know, can a grander on river,

[2:43:42] different stocks that are adapted to various parts of the watershed.

[2:43:47] And they decide to work with them as they're bringing fish in from

[2:43:51] wind river down in the Columbia River Gorge.

[2:43:55] So those are good, good indications that the department

[2:43:57] is following the literature, the science,

[2:44:01] and is also following the information and recommendations of their staff,

[2:44:07] But it's not always the case, and that's the problem.

[2:44:11] It's kind of a situation where if it doesn't fit with our fishery goals, and we're not going

[2:44:19] to do a managed program, so that has actually been a fitting and protecting the life history

[2:44:29] diversity of the wild population.

[2:44:31] An example of that, for instance, is on the Santam River.

[2:44:34] Another one is on the Mollala River, another one's on a mechanical river.

[2:44:39] We're in case for the bringing fish in from other watersheds, released them.

[2:44:44] There's no, there's competition and influence.

[2:44:47] There's predation, attraction, and predator influence on those stock fish.

[2:44:53] Now, like for instance, on this anti-ammeraver, they've asked people to come in and catch the residuals.

[2:44:58] Some are still had hatches.

[2:45:00] Number steel ed, there are not native to the Santian River in our competing with Wildwater Steel ed, there are threatened under the endangered species deck.

[2:45:07] They come and fish for those juvenile steel ed that are residualized as hatchery steel ed, so that they could reduce the competition between the juvenile hatchery steel ed and the Wildwater Steel ed.

[2:45:20] Well, the problem is that that problem is not getting that isn't a good way to resolve the problem, because you're also impacting wild steel ed at the same time.

[2:45:27] But the thing is that the fish don't belong there, but why are they there because they

[2:45:32] sell fishing licenses. That's an important thing to their agency. I understand that.

[2:45:38] But at the same time, why are we allowing summer steelhead be released in that water shed

[2:45:44] that are known competitors and making a problem in the anti-am when we didn't do it,

[2:45:51] where we made those changes, crucial changes on the clack of us above the dam.

[2:45:55] So those inconsistencies are the problem, and it's not a one thing, you know, fixes the whole

[2:46:03] problem.

[2:46:04] There's a lot of problems that these fish are faced with.

[2:46:07] The problem is that the stock transfer policy, which was repealed on the Oregon coast,

[2:46:13] established by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife in the 1980s, to protect the native

[2:46:19] They repealed it when they adopt their coastal multi species plan in order to allow

[2:46:25] hatchery, introduction of spring, Chinook from the Rogue River into the Aquina and Kuzve.

[2:46:33] We don't know what the impact of those fish are going to be, but the reason they decided not to allow

[2:46:39] that to adopt a stock transfer policy for the coast was protect and naturally rearing

[2:46:45] productive, shenook populations on the Oregon coast. That was the goal. Now we've

[2:46:51] repealed it. So again, the science is clear that we need to protect these

[2:46:59] locally, it after stocks. The stock transfer policy, it doesn't exist in the

[2:47:05] state of Oregon by rule. It doesn't, but it isn't part of the rules, but it doesn't

[2:47:10] exist as a rule, it doesn't, it isn't supported by state law, pre-count the serious

[2:47:17] deflation of any indigenous species, but it doesn't exist as a requirement under state

[2:47:23] law not to transfer these fish and protect these fish. The, a lot, a lot most of which are

[2:47:30] listed as, has threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. That's an obligation,

[2:47:35] recover those transferring fish from water one water shed or a hatchery into another one

[2:47:42] doesn't help you accomplish an objective has on this at the end and the malala river and

[2:47:47] and others so the the point I'm trying to make is that the science is clear on stock transfer

[2:47:56] don't do it if you're going to avoid it don't do it the department is been compliant with the science

[2:48:05] in some cases but not at all and we have species recovery problems that are being addressed

[2:48:12] by the state that should be but are being frustrated by stock transfer policy not being applied

[2:48:19] to those situations. So the goal is under this legislation and I think we've written it

[2:48:25] our concept broadly enough where it would allow some transfer of failure. For instance I said

[2:48:31] And, you know, in my comments, bringing bull trout in from the materialiest was certainly

[2:48:37] as an adjacent watershed to the clacamus, but it helped recover a bull trout that had gone

[2:48:46] extinct in the clacamus, probably maybe it's not a good choice, but they seem to be doing

[2:48:50] well.

[2:48:52] And they are feeding on the ESA listed salmon and steel, you know, but you know, that's what happens

[2:49:00] when you get the feds and the states arguing over what's the proper species and what should the recovery

[2:49:07] program look at look like. But we supported bulge items, inclusion in the clock much

[2:49:12] error because it used to be there. Okay, so the our policy, our policy concept allows

[2:49:22] force on the use of cancer fish. But it really draws a line about moving fish from hatcheries,

[2:49:31] or distant watersheds into other watersheds for release to primarily for the purpose of creating

[2:49:38] a sport fishery or a commercial fishery. It was a monitoring of that release and criteria has to

[2:49:52] those two kinds of fish so that you can evaluate whether or not they're actually providing you with a benefit and the

[2:50:00] Mr. Providing that benefit isn't the expense of the Navy population. Thank you very much. If you have any questions,

[2:50:06] be glad to answer. Thank you very much. Welcome, Ed. I'd share with members of the committee.

[2:50:14] My name is Ed Bulls. I'm the Fish Division Administrator for Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

[2:50:18] We appreciate the opportunity to chat with you today about the stock transfer issue in our policies for both conservation and

[2:50:26] related to moving fish around between basins.

[2:50:29] Before I do, I thought I just follow up on our wildlife and ministers pickle on the fish

[2:50:37] in the Comerance Valley.

[2:50:40] I had not seen that before, but if I were to guess, I would think, I think I love this.

[2:50:46] It's actually not a pickle fish, if I heard that right, it's a monkey face prickle back.

[2:50:52] And those are kind of a, you know, you'll have to Google that one.

[2:50:57] It's more of an eel looking fish that resides in the rocks and seaweed.

[2:51:02] And in fact, they can actually live out of water for a little bit.

[2:51:05] And the karma probably got it when it was stranded due to a title shift in the rocks there until much base.

[2:51:12] So there's a little bit of a, all right, go for you.

[2:51:19] So once again I want to just stress on the outset that ODI of W takes and I did provide some

[2:51:31] written testimony for you and hopefully I can be brief and give you your time a lot

[2:51:36] months but you've got that with some details but we take very seriously the importance of

[2:51:42] Managing directly, the risk that are associated with moving fish between vases, whether hatchy fish or

[2:51:51] hatchy produce fish, those risks are real and they're very important for us to be aware of into

[2:51:58] manage and those can be genetic issues that can be health issues related to disease, pathogens, parasites,

[2:52:05] they can be ecological issues, competition, predation, all of those, both on native fish and wildlife

[2:52:11] for the watersheds, so that does not, I don't want to imply that there's any management

[2:52:19] vacuum there whatsoever.

[2:52:22] I want to also make a clear that we have existing policies in place that allow us to manage

[2:52:32] for these risks appropriately, and those policies are the native fish conservation policy,

[2:52:38] The Fish Health Management Policy and the Entry Fish Management Policy.

[2:52:44] And all of those basically mandate the requirement of protecting our naturally produced native fish.

[2:52:53] And within that protective atmosphere providing opportunities for fishing, wherever appropriate within that, standing on that platform of conservation.

[2:53:04] And we don't do that very effectively with one size fits all sort of policy constraints.

[2:53:13] And so the native fish conservation policy is very clear on this that you achieve that

[2:53:19] through a portfolio of actions that are custom tailored to the specific situation, whether

[2:53:29] be a particular watershed or particular species, and that's what allows us to meet the conservation

[2:53:35] needs on a case-by-case basis and allows us to meet the fishing opportunity mandates on a

[2:53:42] case-by-case basis. And that is the approach that we have taken in dealing with stock transfers,

[2:53:48] no different than any of the other approaches that we take to managing the risks that are out

[2:53:54] relative to our conservation needs and I want to make it sometimes providing a fishery with

[2:54:07] an out of basin stock is actually less of a conservation risk than using the invasive stock.

[2:54:14] And this is typically not the norm and in fact our default is to always rely on locally adapted

[2:54:20] stocks where we can, but for example, if you're going to provide a fishing opportunity

[2:54:26] through a hatchery program and the local population in case being on the Canacom River

[2:54:32] Falls, you know, because it's not robust enough, and probably never was to support taking

[2:54:39] adults out to form a brood stock for that hatchery program, using an outside stock to provide

[2:54:46] that fishery opportunity is appropriate and less conservation risk than mining the wild

[2:54:53] fish to get your hatchet roots stock. Other examples would be where you have a situation

[2:54:59] and we're a locally-

[2:55:00] Derive, brewed stock, moved into the hatcheries, may be more likely to interact on the spawning grounds with the remaining wild fish and so you can isolate the hatchery program by having a stock that is less similar to the local population and you can actually reduce the interaction effects of that and then in some cases we manage to that.

[2:55:23] And so this is not, this really does not lend itself to one size fits all approach to managing the conservation risks.

[2:55:31] And I want to just give you a few, in my written testimony, I think I gave you 10 examples.

[2:55:37] If you weren't to decide to go with a uniform prohibition on stock transfers, I gave you 10 examples of very important fisheries that could potentially be lost by something like that.

[2:55:52] if we weren't able to look at this on a case-by-case basis, which is the way we do it now.

[2:55:57] And I'll just mention some of the first five on there, just to make the point, we'd lose,

[2:56:03] potentially, the hatchery, fall, Chinook, Fishery, and the Necanicum River.

[2:56:07] Very important to the North Coast folks, losses, several hatchery, winners, dealet fisheries on

[2:56:13] the North Coast.

[2:56:15] And these some of these fisheries are very popular between Thanksgiving and December, before

[2:56:20] We've shifted to a local brewed stock while brewed stock when there's steel at fisheries.

[2:56:25] Many of our young Nostaca Wilson, some of those rivers, by we've lost through those that

[2:56:33] important Thanksgiving to Christmas time period.

[2:56:37] And many of our stakeholders really want that traditional fishery that comes from, let's say,

[2:56:44] stock at a hatchery program. And so managing that to provide that opportunity is very important

[2:56:52] to stakeholders. We, on the other hand, need to manage those fisheries to ensure that the

[2:56:57] conservation risks to the wild populations are manageable, are contained. You're never going to

[2:57:03] reduce that to zero, but you can attain it to a manageable level, and that's what we do through

[2:57:08] our programs. And those were approved through the Coastal Multi Species Plan that the Commission

[2:57:14] and just adopted in June.

[2:57:16] Laws of several hatchery summer steeled fisheries

[2:57:19] on the North Coast.

[2:57:21] Laws, as Bill mentioned, of several new coastal

[2:57:24] spring-shinook programs that were part

[2:57:27] of the coastal multi-species plan to generate

[2:57:29] economics in the springtime for the likes of the equine and bay

[2:57:34] and coups bay, as well as ramping up some of the releases

[2:57:37] in the springtime for the telemic bay.

[2:57:40] Very important economically to those areas.

[2:57:42] we believe we can manage those hatchery programs in a way that contains the risks to make sure

[2:57:50] our conservation needs are met but we don't need to exclude those from occurring as important

[2:57:55] economic use to those communities. And then the other one that's very important nearly all

[2:58:02] of the state's hatchery programs are non-indigenous fish, okay?

[2:58:10] There are hatchery stocks, Heinz 57, a uniform prohibition of stock transfers would functionally

[2:58:18] remove the state's hatchery trout fisheries.

[2:58:28] The reason Bill mentioned that we removed the existing rule that dealt with stock transfers

[2:58:35] for coastal shunook. That was limited to just shunook and it was limited to just coastal rivers.

[2:58:42] And the reason that was scrub so to speak was because the case by case approach was embodied

[2:58:50] in the new policies, the native fish policy, the hatchery fish management policy, and the

[2:58:55] fish health policy. And so it didn't create a vacuum whatsoever. It just allows us the flexibility

[2:59:01] to deal with this on a case-by-case basis to meet our conservation needs, and that's why

[2:59:07] that was scrubbed.

[2:59:08] It was supported that removal of that in the commission project as well, and so I just

[2:59:18] want to leave you perhaps with the message that the risks associated with moving fish around

[2:59:25] are real.

[2:59:26] We don't take those lightly, but those are embodied in existing policies that are the

[2:59:31] policies of the state, we are able to contain those risks effectively through management.

[2:59:37] And by doing that, with the flexibility afforded to us, we can optimize both conservation

[2:59:44] and fishing opportunities as opposed to a one-size-fits-all uniform prohibition.

[2:59:49] Thank you.

[2:59:50] Thank you very, very much.

[2:59:52] I appreciate your presentations, I appreciate your helping me to get a set of here on

[2:59:58] time.

[2:59:59] Committee members.

[3:00:00] We're two minutes over. I want to take a couple of limited questions, and then we're going to need to wrap up, Representative Krieger.

[3:00:07] Mr. Chair and Bill, and we really, I think, in 13 coming in, I got to understand the value of our native wild fish and that a lot of our efforts should be to understand it for the value of a project, but at the same time.

[3:00:25] We understand that strain takes place anywhere from 3 to 8 percent in wild fish, certain

[3:00:32] years we don't understand why they stray.

[3:00:35] So why is a wild fish that strayes into a stream not as great as a same threat as a wild

[3:00:43] wild fish from a hatchery that strayes into a stream?

[3:00:47] Well, under the scientists have called that a meta-population, it's usually adjacent streams,

[3:00:53] and it's part of their life history, diversity, so the straight rate may be low, but the

[3:01:00] fact is that that allows a group of fish to constantly refresh, I guess, genetically. The

[3:01:09] water sheds, each of the water sheds, because of the strays among the Jason water sheds,

[3:01:14] the fish are most different when they're further away. And there's some science that shows

[3:01:19] to where that distance might be, and related to genetic evaluation of those stocks in

[3:01:26] the most places.

[3:01:28] But the close by ones are part of the metapopulation, that's the way they've evolved, that's

[3:01:34] an important aspect.

[3:01:35] I think Mr. Chair, that's the point I'm getting at this is a natural ongoing thing of non-selective

[3:01:41] of a wild face, not to select their home stream, it's part of the process like they come

[3:01:45] back and two, three, four, five, six year old fish.

[3:01:49] It's a safety net.

[3:01:50] So how we do those stock transfers, as you said,

[3:01:56] we need to keep it at one of us necessary,

[3:01:59] as close to the other stream as possible.

[3:02:03] We have the same thing taking place from the climate

[3:02:06] to the rogue, from the check code of the wind check,

[3:02:09] from the wind check to the Smith River, wild fish

[3:02:12] showing up at each of those streams.

[3:02:14] Acca, they didn't go home to their home stream, but they're wild, so it is a natural process that has value, I think, for the fish themselves.

[3:02:23] Just the one common I have about that is when your hatchery fish are selected for, they essentially called it domesticated fisher within a hatchery program, their fitness, their reproductive success is pretty low in the natural environment.

[3:02:38] and when they interbreed or have an ecological impact upon a wild fish in that particular stream

[3:02:44] then you cause yourself problems in terms of lowering the production like they found on the

[3:02:49] clacomus of the fish that were native to that watershed.

[3:02:55] Ed, I am curious when the departments making the decision of where to introduce fish and in order

[3:03:07] stock them. Is there an opportunity for folks like Bill and the native fish society and maybe

[3:03:15] members of the public who have a scientific interest to be able to have some input into the decision

[3:03:23] of what fish stocks are being introduced into any given tributary?

[3:03:29] Yeah, sure. Let me just give you an example using the coastal plan that was just recently adopted

[3:03:34] by the Commission. We call that the long name is the coastal multi-species conservation

[3:03:41] and management plan. It was six species, long the coast. You all heard a lot about the

[3:03:47] public process. There was a lot of sausage making going on throughout a couple year process

[3:03:53] and many important stakeholder groups involved in that. We had four stakeholder teams. We

[3:04:00] had a separate habitat, scientific forum.

[3:04:06] We had reviews by the independent multidisciplinary science team, and we had so opportunity for

[3:04:14] public comment throughout the process, opportunity for a two-step commission, two different

[3:04:20] commission meetings before it was approved, all culminating in unanimous support by the commission

[3:04:27] and strong stakeholder support in the balanced portfolio.

[3:04:33] Nobody was happy with everything, but it was supported overall

[3:04:37] because of that balance of conservation and use that we provided.

[3:04:43] And I want to make it clear that that, for example,

[3:04:47] that plan, we cannot go in now, and unilaterally, as an agency, add fish to a separate

[3:04:58] water shed and dump it.

[3:05:00] Sir, we can't do that. It has to. Any changes to those plans now have to have commission review. If we're adding new hatchery programs or moving fish around, so the plan adopted the details, which included several places where there will be stock transfers and those were fully vetted through the process and many, many places where stock transfers are prohibited.

[3:05:29] And that's why on one size fits all doesn't work because it's a cross that spectrum that you get to your conservation need by balancing that.

[3:05:39] And that's locked in for a decade.

[3:05:42] Okay, you'll anticipate my next question.

[3:05:45] Very good.

[3:05:45] Well, you addressed it to him.

[3:05:48] I was part of this.

[3:05:50] I like to also say something.

[3:05:52] has that I've been working with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife since the 70s.

[3:05:58] And I have to say that if administratively, I could address the problems administratively with the biologist, with the management,

[3:06:06] and actually gain some ground in terms of conservation management for fish, which is my primary concern.

[3:06:13] Right now, frankly, the best way to gain ground is to go to court.

[3:06:17] I think that's a waste of time and money.

[3:06:20] And what we're not finding in the term and with with inficional life department is that we're getting the cooperation that he's the spouses.

[3:06:32] It's not there.

[3:06:34] And in fact our organization and members of our organization working in places like the John Day and South Coast and so on has actually been blackbulb by the agency.

[3:06:46] And that's one of the reasons that they blackball this, because we took them to court, because

[3:06:51] and we won according to the judge.

[3:06:56] But that's important, I guess, but the thing is, I'd rather see the agency do the changing,

[3:07:03] not have a federal judge telling the do the changing.

[3:07:07] But if we're stuck in this role right now, that only you can't solve the problems administratively,

[3:07:13] have to go to the court, then we're headed in the wrong direction.

[3:07:21] I, for one, would agree with you that resorting to litigation is headed in the wrong direction.

[3:07:31] I'm not able to resolve this difference at this point, but I can't speak for everyone on this committee,

[3:07:42] But I sense a general feeling that there is a desire for us to keep native stocks as pure

[3:07:50] as we possibly can to minimize inner watershed transfers of stocks, that all of this

[3:08:00] is very sound science, and I think makes perfectly good sense to most of us on this committee.

[3:08:07] But I'm hearing also from the Department that there are practical considerations on a daily basis and to the extent that over the next couple of months at least prior to December if there remains a problems that need to be addressed through legislation.

[3:08:33] And helping us to better understand how we get past the practical, every day considerations

[3:08:42] that Mr. Bulls laid out for us, you need to help us understand that, because we're

[3:08:48] going to be looking quite frankly at the possibility of committee legislation between

[3:08:54] Alan Net.

[3:08:56] Could I say one more thing, maybe you ask a very important question, and Mr. Bols believes

[3:09:05] on an interesting problem.

[3:09:09] We were concerned about balancing, you know, utilization and protection, conservation, utilization.

[3:09:16] So we asked the Oregon Department of Justice for a clarification.

[3:09:22] Mr. Bowles asked for a clarification in 2003 with regard to the Navy Fish Conservation

[3:09:27] Policy before we were working on that and I was on the Advisory Committee for that.

[3:09:33] And when both cases there were consistent but it's really interesting to note is that the

[3:09:39] Prevent to Sirius depletion of any indigenous species, quote is the Commission and the

[3:09:50] completion, which thereby enables the commission and the department to provide optimum

[3:09:59] recreation.

[3:10:00] And aesthetic benefits. It's not a balancing. You don't have fishy. You don't practice conservation. If you don't protect the species, you run out of species, you have extinction. The fish runs in the state of Oregon, Washington, California, are going extinct. We're losing capacity. And it's not just habitat. This driving them there, it's also fish management. And I would like to say that the Department of Justice, maybe it's worth a while asking them,

[3:10:29] to give the committee some direction on really what the rule says.

[3:10:35] This is state law.

[3:10:37] This is O-R-S for a 9, 6, 0, 1, 2.

[3:10:42] I understand the implication of what you've said.

[3:10:47] I'm not going to be looking for another branch of the government to direct our committee,

[3:10:51] but I understand the implication of your suggestion.

[3:10:55] and their input is certainly welcome.

[3:10:58] Mr. Bulles, if you have something else,

[3:11:00] I am absolutely going to have to adjourn this

[3:11:02] because you hear momentarily.

[3:11:04] Joe, I'll just leave you with the fact

[3:11:07] that we in no way compromise our conservation mandate

[3:11:13] and its primacy within our management.

[3:11:16] But it's on that platform of conservation

[3:11:18] that we provide opportunities for societal use.

[3:11:21] And conservation does not mean managing to zero risks.

[3:11:27] It means managing, closed risk accordingly.

[3:11:31] And that's what all of our criteria and standards do.

[3:11:35] And it's always within that context that we provide

[3:11:38] Fishing opportunities, some of which may include

[3:11:41] in a very limited basis, some stock transfers,

[3:11:46] afforded that flexibility.

[3:11:47] Thank you very much.

[3:11:49] And with that gentlemen, you're excused, I appreciate your input.

[3:11:53] Committee members, just a couple of things here.

[3:11:56] First, thank you for hanging in here for very long day.

[3:11:59] Number two, we will be looking for volunteers to serve on the fact-finding group

[3:12:06] that we discussed earlier today and number three.

[3:12:11] If any of you have concepts for committee bills for December, please let me know as soon as possible.

[3:12:18] With that we stand adjourned and thank you committee members very very very

House Interim Committee On Agriculture and Natural Resources 2014-09-16 2:00 PM - Sep 16th, 2014

Transcript