HALSEY, Ore. — The entire 350-member Central Linn Elementary School student body and their teachers participated in the Oregon Agriculture in the Classroom 10th Annual Agricultural Literacy Project Kick Off on March 16.

The assembly included shouting out answers to agriculture questions fielded by 2017 Oregon Dairy Princess Ambassador Kiara Single, listening to AITC volunteer Carolyn Jackson read from the book “Allison Investigates: Does Chocolate Milk Come From Brown Cows?” and cheering on fellow classmates running in a dairy relay race.

The book helps young readers understand how milk gets from cows to them.

The program concluded with hands-on butter- and ice cream-making activities in the classrooms.

The AITC Literacy Project goal is to improve both the reading and agricultural literacy of Oregon students in kindergarten through fourth grade. Among the sponsors are the Oregon Dairy and Nutrition Council, Oregon Dairy Farmers Association, NORPAC, Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians and Oregon State University College of Agricultural Sciences.

Ag in the Classroom began in 2008 with 130 volunteers reaching 312 classrooms. Last year, more than 902 classrooms and 21,000 students were visited.

The 2017 Project, which includes giving each classroom a free book, will continue through June 9.

Each year, AITC staff recommends several agriculturally themed books to the AITC board of directors for approval. Once a book is selected, staff and volunteers develop a lesson plan to reinforce the message. Trained volunteers then take the book into classrooms.

“We know agriculture must be taught today because too many people are too far removed from the farm,” Jackson said. “We have to get the word out to contradict the people who say, ‘Why should I worry about farms when I can get my food from the store?’”

As a way of extending the life of the literacy project, past literacy project books, activities and supplies for a classroom, can be checked out through AITC’s free loan library, said Jessica Jansen, executive director of AITC.

AITC was founded in 1981 by a group of volunteers and hired its first full-time director in 1999. It is funded solely by the agriculture community.

Online

Visit www.oregonaitc.org

SALEM — With the help of a specialty crop block grant and the expertise of agriculture professionals and volunteers, the state Department of Agriculture is launching a pilot Oregon Bee Project to help improve and ensure the health of 500-plus native species of bees that help pollinate many crops.

Project goals include field research, public outreach and education, and the creation of an Oregon Bee Farm Certification to reward farmers who adopt bee-friendly practices.

“We’re fortunate to have such a wealth of human capital standing by to help us with this project,” Sarah Kincaid, an entomologist with ODA, said. “We will be holding a series of meetings around to state to get input from farmers, conservationists and other agencies and organizations who would like to contribute to the project. We recently held our first advisory meeting in Portland, and plan to hold others in Myrtle Point, Central Point, The Dalles, Hermiston and the Willamette Valley.”

In addition to the meetings, she will be working with six flagship farms across the state operated by farmers already providing for pollinators, she said.

In Kincaid’s illustrated ODA Guide on Common Bee Pollinators, she details the preferred crops and nesting habits of Oregon’s most common of bees. Unlike social honeybees, which need many individual bees to maintain the hive and care for the young, most native bees are solitary, meaning only a single female builds a nest (or nests) and lays eggs. The native species are remarkably different in their size, appearance, habitat, life cycle, flowers visited and overall behavior.

The social ground-nesting bumble bee, she points out, prefers crops such as blueberries, cranberries and red clover grown for seed, while the solitary leafcutter bee that nests in cracks and crevices of wood or rock, in beetle holes and occasionally on the ground, prefers alfalfa, onions, carrots and sunflowers.

“We decided to launch this program because we don’t know enough about our native bees,” Kincaid said. “We will be looking at bee habitat including over-winter nesting sites and the value of planting pollinator hedgerows along edges of fields to provide wind breaks and wintering habitat.

“The program begins doing the research we need to begin filling our knowledge gaps. We are looking forward to working with growers who are already providing native bee habitat as well as with new people who are eager to learn. The last component of the program is to develop a logo and a bee friendly farm certification that could help growers market their products.”

Online

For more information about meeting dates for the project, email oregonbeeproject@oda.state.or.us

SALEM — New lawsuits over trespass by genetically engineered crops would be authorized in Oregon under proposed legislation that would hold biotech patent holders liable for damages.

Supporters of House Bill 2739 say it’s a common sense strategy to remedy problems caused by genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, similar to consumer lawsuits over defective products.

“This is not a wild legal grab. We will not be compensated for our angst. We will only be compensated for provable legal damages,” said Sandra Bishop of the Our Family Farms Coalition, which supports HB 2739.

Jerry Erstrom, a Malheur County farmer, said he supports the bill even though he’s planted genetically engineered corn on his property.

“If you do something that messes up my livelihood, you should be held accountable for it,” Erstrom said at a March 16 hearing of the House Judiciary Committee.

Creeping bentgrass that’s genetically engineered to tolerate glyphosate herbicides escaped control in Eastern Oregon, and the crop’s patent holder should be responsible for control costs as it spreads, he said.

“It’s coming to the Willamette Valley. Say what you want, it’s going to be here,” Erstrom said.

Proponents of HB 2739 say there’s nothing new about holding companies liable for their products hurting people or property, but organic and conventional farmers must currently bear the financial burden from GMO crop contamination alone.

“We’re not coming to you from a level playing field. Harm is only coming one way,” said Amy van Saun, legal fellow with the Center for Food Safety, which supports the bill.

Supports say the legal mechanism of HB 2739 is simple and fair because the liability rests with companies that profit from GMO patents.

Complicated searches for a culprit won’t be necessary, since biotech traits can be determined with genetic tests, said Elise Higley, director of the Our Family Farms Coalition.

“It’s super easy to track it back to who is responsible,” Higley said.

Opponents of the bill argue that pollination among related crops isn’t limited to GMOs, but neighboring farmers have long found practical ways to avoid unwanted crosses.

“It’s one of the greatest risks I face, but it’s a manageable risk,” said Kevin Richards, who grows seeds and other crops near Madras, Ore.

Under a provision in HB 2739, plaintiffs are entitled to triple the amount of economic damages caused by the unwanted presence of GMOs, which is clearly meant to be punitive, according to the bill’s detractors.

“It would single out and stigmatize biotech patents,” said Barry Bushue, president of the Oregon Farm Bureau.

Critics also questioned the logic of making patent holders liable for unauthorized GMOs, since the problem may be caused by irresponsible practices of neighboring landowners or factors beyond human control, like birds.

“They sell the seed but they have no control once that happens,” said Roger Beyer, a lobbyist for the Oregon Seed Council and other crop groups.

Apart from the immediate impacts of the bill, imposing new liability on patent holders may discourage seed companies from offering innovative products in Oregon, said Scott Dahlman, policy director of the Oregonians for Food and Shelter agribusiness group.

If companies face the threat of additional lawsuits, “they will reconsider whether they sell things here,” Dahlman said.

Pete Postlewait, a farmer near Canby, Ore., said he’s disturbed by the precedent of punishing patent holders for the actions of end users, since that logic could be extended to non-GMO cross-pollination.

“By weakening plant patent laws in this way, it will surely stifle innovation in plant breeding,” he said.

The bill’s language also encompasses new methods, such as gene editing, that are used by university breeders who often hold their own patents, said Steve Strauss, a professor who studies biotechnology at Oregon State University.

“Wheat breeders and others would love to use this gene editing technology,” he said.

SALEM — Nearly four years after barring local governments from regulating genetically engineered crops, Oregon lawmakers are thinking of reversing that policy.

The Oregon Legislature pre-empted all local ordinances over seed in 2013 but is now considering House Bill 2469, which would create an exception allowing local restrictions for genetically engineered crops.

Critics of the bill worry it will pave the way for outright bans on genetically modified crops, or GMOs, such as the prohibition passed in 2014 by Jackson County voters.

Jackson County’s GMO ban was allowed to go forward because the initiative was already on the ballot when the state pre-emption policy was enacted.

Barry Bushue, president of the Oregon Farm Bureau, said it’s unfortunate that some people would rather forbid farmers from growing certain crops rather than letting them resolve conflicts with neighbors amicably.

“I urge you to reject the notion that one grower should be prioritized by the government over another,” said Bushue said at a March 16 hearing before the House Agriculture Committee.

Fewer than 1 percent of organic farmers have reported losing crop value due to GMOs and none of them were in Oregon, Bushue said, citing a nationwide USDA survey.

Also, no growers have taken advantage of a mediation program aimed at resolving conflicts among conventional, organic and biotech crops, passed by Oregon lawmakers in 2015, he said.

Steve Strauss, an Oregon State University professor who studies biotechnology, said lawmakers should ask themselves whether they want Oregon agriculture to be known for innovation or for exclusion.

Scientists are developing new crops with gene editing, which doesn’t involve transferring DNA from one organism to another but could nonetheless be restricted under HB 2469, he said.

Opponents of HB 2469 argue the possibility of local restrictions on genetically engineered crops will create uncertainty for farmers, particularly if they cultivate crops in multiple jurisdictions.

Tim Winn, who produces biotech sugar beets in Benton County, said proponents of GMO bans see farmers like him as “necessary collateral damage.”

“I urge you to please not take my options away,” he said.

Supporters of the bill claim that local governments should again be permitted to set their own rules because the state government has taken no action on GMOs since the 2013 pre-emption policy was approved.

“We were led to believe cross-contamination would somehow be addressed through the Department of Agriculture,” said Rep. Paul Holvey, D-Eugene, who sponsored HB 2469.

The USDA has acknowledged that damages from GMO contamination occur but claims it lacks the authority to prevent such problems, said Amy van Saun, a legal fellow at the Center for Food Safety, a nonprofit that supports greater biotech regulation.

It would be great if the state government tackled the problem, but it’s shown no such intention, she said.

“It’s not coexistence when only one side bears the burden and the costs,” van Saun said.

Growers of conventional and organic seed would be unreasonable to ignore the potential legal liability of selling crops contaminated with patented biotech traits, said Elise Higley, director of Our Family Farms Coalition, which supports HB 2469.

Contaminated seed would also be rejected by buyers who want a GMO-free product, ultimately making it more expensive as it becomes more rare, she said.

“GE farmers end up winning by default and our traditional seed supply diminishes,” Higley said.

Proponents of HB 2469 also discounted arguments against local GMO ordinances, such as the possible confusion from various county-by-county rules.

“So what if there’s a patchwork? There are all kinds of patchworks with different policies and they’re working just fine,” Higley said.

Counties that have enacted GMO bans also haven’t been saddled with additional costs, as predicted by opponents, said Barbara Richard, a Rogue Valley resident.

“None of them have encountered any enforcement issues. They’re self-enforcing,” she said.

It’s one of the conundrums of U.S. agriculture. Demand for organic products continues to surge — sales grew by 11 percent in 2015 — but production is flat.

Researchers at Oregon State University and at Oregon Tilth, which certifies organic producers, tried to find out why.

Glimmers of answers came in a survey returned by 615 farmers nationally. Among other things, they identified obstacles that are holding back organic production. Chief among them, many said they would welcome farmer-to-farmer help, need help with weed and pest management and believe the cost of certification and required paperwork are major obstacles.

Farmers transitioning to organic said they would welcome mentoring from experienced producers and one-on-on technical help. Surprisingly, “yield drag” — reduced crop production from fields that no longer are treated with synthetic pesticides or fertilizers — was not an issue with survey respondents. Only 17 percent listed it as a major obstacle; 32 percent said it was a minor obstacle and 51 percent said it was not an obstacle at all.

Beyond technical issues, organic producers have passion on their side.

In the survey, 91 percent of respondents said organic production fits their personal or family values and nearly 87 percent it matches up with their environmental concern. More than 86 percent said organic production enhances farm sustainability and coincides with their concerns about human health.

“It’s an interesting marketplace thing,” said Garry Stephenson, director of Oregon State University’s Center for Small Farms & Community Food Systems. “Demand for certified organic products has continued to grow in the U.S., and yet the businesses involved are having a problem sourcing organic crops — food, cotton, or whatever. For some reason, U.S. farmers are not responding to the demands of the marketplace.”

Stephenson said the report may shape the university’s approach to transitioning farmers.

“There has not been an organized OSU initiative to educate farmers on transitioning to organic certification,” he said by email. “Hopefully, this report may have some influence.”

Sarah Brown, education director for Oregon Tilth, said the certification agency is developing a mentorship program that will match beginners with producers who have successfully transitioned to organic. The survey results also provide justification for weed management research, she agreed.

Stephenson, of OSU, said the consistent identification of weed management as a major obstacle will motivate the university to adjust the focus of some of its programming and applied research. OSU is researching innovative “degree day” modeling as a weed management approach for vegetable crops, he said.

“The challenge of weed management in organic farming is not surprising and other studies have similar findings,” Stephenson said by email.

Surveys were sent to farmers who had taken part in Natural Resources Conservation Service’s organic programs. The majority who responded were small-scale vegetable farmers with less than 10 years experience.

Stephenson said the data gave researchers access to producers they don’t often talk to: farmers who are in the process of transitioning. Researchers broke respondents into four groups: Those who have transitioned; those who have started but not finished; those whose operations are split between conventional and organic; and those who began the organic certification process but quit.

Online

The report, “Breaking New Ground: Farmer Perspectives on Organic Transition”

https://tilth.org/resources/breakingground/

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — In Oregon’s ultra-liberal city of Portland, where protest is a way of life, the new mayor is taking on the sacrosanct.

Mayor Ted Wheeler and the City Council unanimously approved an emergency ordinance Wednesday that would allow city leaders to eject disruptive protesters from meetings and ban them from council chambers for up to 60 days in some cases.

As they voted, commissioners said months of protests by a small group of people have shut down meetings, disrupted government business, caused stress to city staff, undermined projects and prevented other residents from appearing before the council.

“I don’t know why you’ve decided that your voices are more important than anyone else who comes to this chamber to give testimony,” said Commissioner Chloe Eudaly, who was elected to the Council last fall and called the interruptions “toxic.”

“The fact that I can’t singlehandedly and immediately satisfy your demands does not mean that we are not listening to you.”

The American Civil Liberties Union immediately condemned the ordinance as unconstitutional and protesters tried to prevent the vote by shouting down commissioners as they were polled.

People in the chamber held up posters with an image of Wheeler’s head that read “Gas the Peaceful, Let the Poor Freeze.”

The poster is a dual reference to Portland’s vast numbers of homeless and anger over how the Portland Police Bureau handled almost daily protests after President Donald Trump’s inauguration.

In papers filed with the City Council, ACLU-Oregon’s legal director Mat dos Santos said city officials have the right to throw out disruptive individuals on a case-by-case basis, but banning a person from future meetings based on their current behavior is unconstitutional.

“People have the right to express unpopular, even offensive ideas,” he wrote. “The government cannot bar communicative acts ... based on the mere fear of disruption in reaction to those acts.”

The vote came after nearly four hours of a city agenda that was largely made up of members of the public taking the floor to criticize Wheeler. Several commenters preceded their remarks by calling the day “Unconstitutional Wednesday.”

“Locally, we’re going to have the war on protesters, backed up now by a City Council ordinance,” said Charles BridgeCrane Johnson, a local activist. “Shame on all of you. I know you can see our attempts to communicate with you and you ignore them.”

Before the vote, Wheeler said the provision allowing people to be banned from the council chambers won’t be used until a federal court rules on its constitutionality.

“There is a difference of opinion among informed attorneys as to whether this is constitutional or not. It may not be constitutional,” Wheeler said, adding that passing it would allow the court evaluation to start.

A federal judge in 2015 ruled that the city acted unconstitutionally when it threw out a protester and banned him for 60 days. But the judge left open a window for the city to revise its ordinance and bring it back for review, said Michael Cox, a spokesman for the mayor.

The revised ordinance contains an appeals process and specifies the types of behavior that can get a person banned, he said.

Weekly or even daily protests are nothing new in Portland, but in recent months even this city has had more than its share — and Wheeler has seemed more willing than previous mayors to push back.

That approach, plus a constellation of highly charged events, has created an atmosphere of anger and distrust for some.

Police shot and killed a 17-year-old black teenager on Feb. 9 and the ALCU and others have strongly criticized police for crowd control tactics during recent anti-Trump protests that included the use of pepper spray and rubber bullets.

The city has also been panned for its response to its homeless crisis during an especially harsh winter. Four people have died of exposure and a stillborn infant was found with his homeless mother at a street side bus stop earlier this year.

EUGENE, Ore. (AP) — Bryan Harper is a man of varied talents: a pilot, a former University of Oregon track athlete, and a fifth-generation Junction City farmer.

Harper’s great-great grandfather M.J. Harper moved to Oregon from Wisconsin and in 1891 began growing fruits and vegetables on a 120-acre farm off River Road in Junction City.

Now 125 years later, Bryan Harper, 28, still farms about 80 acres of that plot, along with nearly 400 more acres in the River Road area.

Last year Harper became vice president and director of operations of his family’s business, Harper Farms Inc. He manages about 470 acres of hazelnuts.

“The challenge of it is exciting — feeding the world,” he said. “It’s pretty cool to be one of the young guys in the group — in some cases, decades younger.”

Also last year, Harper started serving a four-year term on the 10-member Oregon Agriculture Board, which advises and recommends policy to the state Department of Agriculture.

He’s the youngest person on the board and its only African-American.

Harper’s dad, Warren, is a longtime Junction City farmer. His mom, Rose, is from Kenya.

“I’m the new generation,” Harper said. He said when he walks into a room of old-line Oregon farmers, “most people ask, ‘Who do you work for?’”

“I say, myself.” Harper said, smiling.

“People ask, ‘Who’s your dad?’?” Harper said. “I guess (I) don’t fit the expectation of what you’d see in Oregon.

“To me it’s just part of life,” he said. “When they see me, hear me talk, hear my story, people are usually pleased.”

A 21st century millennial, Harper said he appreciates the latest research and technologies that can help his family’s farm be more efficient and productive, but he also respects the wisdom and experience passed down by his long line of farming ancestors.

The Junction City High School graduate attended flight school in Florida, thinking he wanted a career in aviation, then he returned home and attended Lane Community College where he ran track as a sprinter. He transferred to the University of Oregon on a partial track scholarship and graduated from the university with a psychology degree in 2012.

Nearing college graduation, with the world wide open with career possibilities, Harper attended a family meeting with his dad, his grandma, Janet Harper — the family matriarch — and his aunts Eileen McLellan and Marilyn Rear. That set in motion the plan for him to be the next generation of Harpers to continue the family’s farming legacy.

“It was a motivator when my family said, here you go, if you want to,” Harper said.

He said he realized, “I really like flying, but I’d hate to have the farm dissolve, and there was nobody to take it over.”

Janet Harper died last November at age 97.

Harper said his grandma took a lot of pride in having seen four generations of family farmers.

“She wanted to see the farm continue,” Harper said. “She planted that seed early on — that there’s opportunity here if you want it.

“She was the biggest advocate for that.”

Harper said his grandma was his first boss.

“You’d grab your hoe, gloves and boots, and at 5 or 6 years old, you were on weed-pulling duty with grandma,” he said.

In recent years Harper’s sister Tiffany, and cousin, Katherine Rear, also have shown interest in the family farm.

“There’s opportunity for anyone to come back, Harper said.

Harper said he’s happy to take the baton for the next generation.

“Being a fifth-generation farmer there’s some legacy, some history and being that next generation is appealing,” he said.

The motivation to farm runs deep, Harper said.

“Part of it is having grown up with it,” he said. “I always had good memories growing up here — getting up in the middle of the night to cook peppermint oil with my dad, riding four-wheelers around to move (irrigation) pipe.

“You’re sort of your own boss,” Harper said. “You write your own schedule. There’s more freedom. “

There’s also a lot of uncertainty — whether it’s weather conditions or new regulations, he said.

And it’s a big responsibility, Harper said.

“You’re temporary stewards of the land, caring for it until someone else takes over,” he said.

“In agriculture you’re all in or all out,” Harper said. “You have to make your decisions quick. You have to find resources that could help out with that.”

Harper’s dad, Warren, said recently that he was never told that he had to farm. And neither was Bryan. They each decided for themselves to carry on the family business.

“In any family business the biggest compliment is if the next generation wants to come into it,” Warren Harper said.

An advocate of direct seeding and no-till farming hopes Northeastern Oregon wheat growers don’t give up the practice in wake of news that patches of Russian thistle, or tumbleweed, have developed resistance to glyphosate, the herbicide commonly used to control weeds in wheat fields.

Judit Barroso, a weed scientist at Oregon State University, recently published her research that confirmed what some growers have been worried about since they first reported trouble controlling Russian thistle with glyphosate in 2015. Barroso collected thistle samples from 10 locations in Morrow, Sherman and Umatilla counties; three from Morrow County turned out to be glyphosate resistant.

Barroso said those populations probably were treated much more frequently than others sampled, and had developed tolerance to the herbicide. Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Monsanto’s widely-used Roundup weed killer. Farmers who grow on a summer fallow rotation typically spray their fields after harvest and while the field lies fallow. The practice kills weeds without tillage, which can cause erosion.

Russian thistle competes with wheat plants for water and nutrients, and can reduce yield. When it dries, breaks off the stem and tumbles with the wind, it can spread seeds across wide areas, meaning glyphosate-resistance could spread as well.

Barroso advises growers to delay the onset of glyphosate resistance by rotating the use of different herbicides or using other weed control methods.

Blake Rowe, CEO of the Oregon Wheat Commission, said dryland growers in Oregon and Washington are closely following Barroso’s work and are trying to figure out the next step in research. Possibilities may include revised chemical strategies or timing, or planting cover crops that would compete with Russian thistle and perhaps weaken it. A return to cultivation is possible, he said.

“We’re looking at this one pretty hard,” Rowe said.

The Pacific Northwest Direct Seed Association, based in Colton, Wash., has been monitoring the findings as well. The organization is a non-profit that helps growers transition to no-till farming and direct seeding practices, in which seeds and fertilizer are planted into the stubble of the previous crop with minimal disturbance of the soil.

Executive Director Kay Meyer said a couple strategies have emerged to cope with glyphosate resistant Russian thistle. There’s no “silver bullet,” she said, but some farmers may be able to break the weed cycle by rotating in other cash crops rather than follow the grain-fallow-grain pattern year after year. Austrian peas may be an option for some, she said.

Cover crops may break disease cycles and build up soil, but some producers are worried they would take too much moisture from land that otherwise would lie fallow, she said.

Technology may hold an answer as well, Meyer said. New spot spray systems such as WeedIt and WeedSeeker can optically identify and spray only growing weeds, not bare ground. Such systems can reduce chemical use by 80 percent, Meyer said, and the savings might allow growers to use more expensive chemicals other than glyphosate.

The technology is expensive, but in some cases farmers might jointly purchase and share the system, she said.

The state director for USDA Wildlife Services in Oregon said the agency has removed M-44 cyanide poison traps from “areas of immediate concern” following the unintended poisoning of a wolf in Wallowa County in February.

Director Dave Williams said Wildlife Services has reviewed what happened and shared that information with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, which manages wolves in the state. The two agencies are in ongoing discussions about how to prevent another wolf death, Williams said.

“We don’t feel good about that,” he said.

Williams said Wildlife Services has removed M-44s from areas identified by ODFW as places wolves are present. ODFW officials were not immediately available Wednesday to verify the information.

OR-48, a 100-pound male from the Shamrock Pack, died Feb. 26 after it bit an M-44 device, which fires cyanide powder into a predator’s mouth when it tugs on a baited or scented capsule holder. Wildlife Services set the trap on private land in an attempt to kill coyotes.

The federal agency kills predators or other wildlife that damage or pose a threat to property, livestock or humans. The agency describes M-44s as an “effective and environmentally sound wildlife damage management tool,” but the wildlife activist group Predator Defense calls them notoriously dangerous.

The devices are designed to kill canids such as coyotes and foxes. The cyanide powder reacts with saliva in an animal’s mouth, forming a poisonous gas that kills the animal within one to five minutes. Brooks Fahy,executive director of Predator Defense, said M-44s indiscriminately kill dogs attracted by the scent and are a hazard to children or others who might come across them in rural areas.

The Wallowa County incident is complicated by Oregon’s management and protection of gray wolves over the past decade as they entered the state from Idaho, formed packs, quickly grew in population and spread geographically.

Previously, Wildlife Services did not use M-44s in what the state designated as Areas of Known Wolf Activity. After wolves were taken off the state endangered species list in 2015, it was ODFW’s understanding that Wildlife Services would continue to avoid using M-44s in such areas.

“We discussed our concerns specifically regarding M-44s,” ODFW spokesman Rick Hargrave said last week. “We didn’t want those devices in those areas.

“We believed it was clear what our concerns were,” Hargrave said.

Williams, the Wildlife Services state director, said he wants to focus on preventing another wolf death rather than “who messed up here.”

He said the Wallowa County case was the first time the agency has killed a wolf in Oregon. Overall, the agency has recorded “lethal take” of “non-targeted” animals — ones it didn’t intend to kill — in 1.3 percent of cases, he said. He said the agency twice unintentionally caught Oregon wolves in foothold traps, which nonetheless allowed ODFW to put tracking collars on them before releasing them unharmed.

“Some of our tools are more forgiving than others,” Williams said.

He said Wildlife Services puts on workshops to help ranchers protect livestock with non-lethal methods. In one case two summers ago, agency personnel spent 260 hours over four weeks helping protect a sheep flock from Umatilla Pack wolves, he said. The work allowed ODFW to avoid having to kill wolves due to depredations, he said.

Meanwhile, the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association views the Wallowa County incident as a matter of agency to agency interaction and is “staying on the sidelines” in the investigation, said Todd Nash, a Wallowa County rancher who is the group’s wolf policy chair. Livestock producers, of course, have a keen interest in the state’s wolf management policies and outcomes.

“It’s never a good time politically to have a dead wolf,” Nash said.

Capital Press

Mark Sheffels doesn’t plant as much wheat as he once did.

Sheffels, who farms west of Spokane near Davenport and Wilbur, Wash., started reducing his wheat acreage several years ago in favor of winter peas.

He made the move because of low wheat prices and the high costs of raising it.

“Even when markets suggest we ought to do something else, agronomically it’s pretty hard to find replacements,” Sheffels said. “But we’re getting there, little by little.”

Colfax, Wash., grower Larry Cochran spreads his risk by planting alternative crops, including dry peas, lentils, chickpeas and barley. But wheat is still his primary crop.

“Because that’s what we do,” Cochran said. “We’re wheat farmers.”

Growers have reacted in a variety of different ways, from switching to new primary crops to diversifying what they raise, as they look for ways to wait out wheat prices that are lower than the cost of production.

Farmers estimate the cost of production at roughly $5.50 to $6 per bushel, said Glen Squires, CEO of the Washington Grain Commission.

The market price hovered between $4.50 and $4.65 per bushel this week. The export price is typically 60 to 80 cents lower than that, because farmers have to pay to get the wheat to Portland to ship it overseas.

“That’s why you hear guys saying they’re at $4 wheat, or a little below,” Squires said.

Cochran said he’s planting the same amount of wheat despite lower prices.

“I’m trying to raise a wheat crop as cheaply as I can,” he said. “Our input costs have come down some. I just hope I get a good, big crop that makes up for some of the loss of price.”

U.S. winter wheat acreage has dropped to one of the lowest levels ever, according to USDA. The USDA projects 50.2 million acres of wheat planted this winter, down 8.7 percent from 55 million acres in 2016.

Spring wheat acres are still to be determined, but Dan Steiner, grain merchant for Morrow County Grain Growers in Boardman, Ore., expects them to be relatively high.

“Wheat acres in the United States are definitely down, but wheat production across the world is going to be higher,” Steiner said.

Several factors have contributed to the burgeoning world supply, including more Russian production and China boosting production through farm subsidies, further depressing prices.

“Supply has been related to great weather around the world for four years in a row, which is unusual,” said Steve Mercer, vice president of communications for U.S. Wheat Associates.

The global stocks-to-use ratio would be significantly lower if China is factored out, and is declining, Mercer said.

“If we see a reduction in planting, weather and yields that are more normal or weather problems anywhere, we’re going to start cleaning out that supply pretty quickly,” he said. “There should be a correlated increase in demand, and therefore prices.”

In the meantime, Cochran will continue to spread his risk by diversification.

“All it takes is one disaster in the world somewhere and the price can change,” Cochran said.

Sheffels has a couple thousand acres of winter peas and 1,300 acres of winter wheat this year. He grows a rotation of winter wheat, fallow, winter peas and fallow under direct-seed production.

Sheffels says his fields look good, with a good snow cover easing his concerns about any problems caused by the cold winter.

He plans to maintain his rotation for the foreseeable future, and doesn’t think he’ll go back to wheat as his primary crop.

“It’s unlikely that’s going to happen, honestly,” he said.

DAVIS, Calif. — The USDA is accepting applications from farmers and ranchers in Northern and Central California seeking assistance after this winter’s flooding.

The Farm Service Agency is making available emergency low-interest loans to growers in counties included in President Donald Trump’s Feb. 14 declaration, which stretches through much of the state.

The loans are available to a producer who suffered at least a 30 percent loss of a primary crop or loss of income as a result of the disaster, according to the FSA website.

County FSA offices are also beginning to help growers access other aid programs that didn’t require the declaration, such as a tree replacement program for farms on which standing water damaged a young orchard or vineyard, said Jacque Johnson, the FSA’s acting state executive director.

Johnson said she expects some applications for loans and other aid, but much of the damage was minor enough that farmers could address it themselves.

“There is a lot of damage, but typically we don’t have hundreds and hundreds of people applying,” she said. “There is damage, but not so much damage that a farmer is not able to address it without assistance from the federal government.”

The aid follows a series of heavy winter storms that flooded fields, blew trees over and interfered with the almond blossom. Flood waters soaked artichokes and cauliflower in the Salinas Valley, covered rice and other fields in the middle Sacramento Valley, forced animals to higher ground along the Tuolumne and San Joaquin rivers and prompted workers to shore up weak spots in nearly 1,600 miles of levees in the Central Valley.

Among the programs available to growers:

• The Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honeybees and Farm-Raised Fish Program (ELAP) provides relief for losses because of feed or water shortages, disease, adverse weather or other conditions. It covers damaged or destroyed livestock feed that was intended for use by the producer’s eligible livestock, the California Cattlemen’s Association advises.

The program also covers up to 150 lost grazing days when livestock must be removed because of flooding and beehive losses from a natural disaster including flooding, the CCA notes.

• The Non-Insured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP) provides producers who have purchased the coverage with financial assistance for low yields, loss of inventory or prevented planting because of the disaster.

• The Livestock Indemnity Program pays eligible producers for livestock deaths that were caused by the disaster.

• The Tree Assistance Program (TAP) helps orchardists and nursery tree growers who lost trees, shrubs and vines because of the disaster.

• The Emergency Conservation Program (ECP) funds rehabilitation of land damaged by natural disasters, including replacing fences and removing debris.

• HayNet is an FSA-supported advertising site allowing farmers and ranchers to post “need hay” and “have hay” ads online, the CCA notes. Farmers can also post similar messages relating to grazing land. The site is www.fsa.usda.gov/haynet .

Each program has specific deadlines and requirements. Visit www.fsa.usda.gov or call your local Farm Service Agency office for details.

Fifteen new varieties have been added to the annual list that ranks wheat quality for growers and seed dealers.

Usually five or six varieties are added each year, said Doug Engle, manager of the USDA Western Wheat Quality Laboratory in Pullman, Wash.

The laboratory, the Idaho and Oregon wheat commissions and the Washington Grain Commission distribute the Preferred Wheat Varieties brochure.

The brochure assigns a ranking to each wheat variety — most desirable, desirable, acceptable and least desirable.

Of the 107 varieties listed, 52 received a most-desirable ranking.

Overall quality is the deciding factor, industry officials say.

“If you’re looking at choices of varieties, and you have a couple that have comparable agronomics, comparable yields, choose the one with the better quality,” said Glen Squires, CEO of the Washington commission. “That will just increase the overall quality of the crop.”

Mike Pumphrey, a spring wheat breeder at Washington State University, said the brochure is also a good guideline for breeders.

“I want my line to be on there with a desirable or most-desirable quality, so that the industry sees we’re doing our best to maintain the market share based on quality and production factors,” he said.

Farmers and seed managers pay attention to the brochure, Engel said.

Varieties don’t move up or down on the list, he said. The brochure uses all cumulative information on a variety.

Every three years, Engle polls the three state wheat organizations and removes varieties that don’t have significant acreage to make room for the new ones.

Pumphrey said growers see the long-term need to maintain a high-quality product.

“I often am surprised how much they value quality, considering it’s something they’re not overtly paid for any given crop year,” he said. “There’s been many times I’ve heard a farmer say, ‘Yeah, but I don’t like the quality of that line.’ That’s a tall order, when someone might be looking past bottom-line economics in one given year to say, ‘I don’t like the quality of that line and what it might do to us long-term.’”

A new category was added this year: Unacceptable Except Customer-Specific Uses, or UCS, for varieties that might perform well in a specific product, but should be segregated from general commercial channels, according to the brochure.

“If a mill wants to source that wheat, more power to them,” Engle said. “There’s a home for everything if you just look hard enough.”

WestBred soft white spring wheat WB-1035CL+, Arizona Plant Breeders hard white spring wheat BR7030 and three hard red winter wheats, Residence and Estica from Cebeco and Symphony from Tanio Tech, have the UCS ranking.

New varieties

Following are the new wheat varieties added to the Preferred Wheat Varieties brochure:

• LCS Drive

• UI Sparrow

• Norwest Duet

• SY Assure

• WB1604

• WB1529

• ARS-Pritchet

• LCS Evina

• LCS Jet

• Tekoa

• WB6341

• Ryan

• SY Steelhead

• LCS Luna

• LCS Iron

SALEM — Two bills aimed at expanding affordable housing in rural Oregon would make it easier to build dwellings or permanently reside in recreational vehicles on farmland.

Advocates of House bills 2937 and 2938 say the proposals would help mitigate the state’s housing shortage without undermining protections for farmland.

However, critics argue the bills would disrupt agricultural operations without having much impact on housing and could be counterproductive by encouraging short-term rentals.

“It’s just not the best use of farmland,” said Mary Anne Nash, public policy counsel for the Oregon Farm Bureau.

Proponents of the bills said lawmakers need to be creative in finding solutions to Oregon’s housing problem.

There are limits to what can be accomplished with legislation focused on landlord-tenant relations, said Julie Parrish, R-West Linn, during a March 14 legislative hearing.

“It doesn’t put new units in the mix,” she said.

Oregon’s land use system was intended to preserve farmland but not to create insufficent housing and perpetuate homelessness, Parrish said.

Meanwhile, HB 2937 and 2938 have restrictions that limit new dwellings and won’t “upset the land use apple cart in any significant way,” she said.

Under HB 2937, a single “accessory dwelling” can be sited within 100 feet of an existing home in a rural residential zone, or in a “exclusive farm use” zone with a county conditional use permit.

The same conditions apply to a single recreational vehicle used for “residential purposes” under HB 2938.

County governments can decide whether or not to incorporate these provisions into their land use plans and they’re also free to place additional restrictions on accessory dwellings and recreational vehicles sited in farm zones, according to supporters.

“The opportunity to be bold is there. You’re going to take political arrows either way,” said Shawn Cleave, government affairs director for the Oregon Association of Realtors.

Critics of the proposals say that affordable housing is needed more near cities where residents have access to jobs, transportation and other services, rather than in remote rural areas.

More people living in the countryside also means strains will increase on local road and water systems, opponents said.

Neither bill requires housing to be provided at affordable rates or to residents with low incomes, said Mary Kyle McCurdy, deputy director of the 1,000 Friends of Oregon, a nonprofit that supports Oregon’s land use system.

The proposals don’t prohibit landowners from using the dwellings for short-term vacation rentals, which often crowd out long-term rentals, McCurdy said.

Even if the bills contained such provisions, they’d be difficult to enforce given the rural locations of the dwellings, she said.

The profitability of short-term rentals has caused them to proliferate in Hood River County, where farming is already challenging due to the small size of farm parcels, said Mike McCarthy, an orchardist in the county.

Farm practices are often incompatible with residential uses and growers must comply with federal restrictions that prohibit spraying pesticides near dwellings, McCarthy said.

“You’re adding people into that zone,” he said.

ONTARIO, Ore. — Snowpack levels in the Owyhee River basin were far above normal this winter and the Owyhee Reservoir will fill for the first time since 2011.

About 1,800 farms and 118,000 irrigated acres in Eastern Oregon and part of southwestern Idaho depend on water from the reservoir. In 2016, those irrigators received their full 4-acre-foot allotment of water for the first time in four years.

This year’s water supply outlook is even better and, because the reservoir was built to hold a two-year’s supply of irrigation water, next year looks promising as well.

“It’s as good as it’s looked in a long time,” said Owyhee Irrigation District Manager Jay Chamberlin.

He flew over the basin in an airplane March 13 to gain a better feel for how much water will reach the reservoir this year.

A lot of the low-elevation snow has already melted and reached the reservoir but there is still quite a bit of snow in the medium to upper elevations, Chamberlin said.

“Everything looks really positive,” said Oregon farmer Bruce Corn, a member of the OID’s board of directors.

The reservoir, which has the capacity to hold 715,000 acre-feet of water for irrigation, was 79 percent full with 563,000 acre-feet as of March 13, according to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.

A little bit of water is being released from the dam right now for flood control efforts and the OID board will soon have to decide whether to release even more, Chamberlin said.

Total runoff from the basin this year is projected to be 146 percent of average, said Brian Sauer, water operations manager for the bureau’s middle Snake River field office.

“We anticipate a full supply of water availability on the Owyhee Project this year,” he said.

The bureau forecasts a total of 1.08 million acre-feet of water will flow into the reservoir from January through June. About 300,000 acre-feet has already reached the reservoir so that means another 783,000 acre-feet is still to come.

By comparison, the reservoir received 531,000 acre-feet of runoff all of last year, 190,000 acre-feet in 2015 and 175,000 acre-feet in 2014.

The allotment for Owyhee Project irrigators was slashed significantly from 2013-2015 because of drought conditions.

The project has significantly limited allotments a couple of times in the past but never that many years in a row, Corn said.

The current water supply situation looks great compared with those drought years but the project is really just getting back to typical levels, he said.

“This is really more of a normal scenario,” he said.

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — Federal prosecutors assigned to the criminal case against the lawyer for the leader of the armed occupation at an Oregon wildlife refuge have filed a motion to drop the remaining charges.

The Oregonian/OregonLive reports prosecutors filed the motion Monday, more than three weeks after a judge dropped one of the three charges against Marcus Mumford.

Special attorneys Timothy J. Ohms and George J.C. Jacobs of Washington state filed the motion in U.S. District Court in Portland, asking a judge to dismiss the criminal information without prejudice, meaning the government could file charges in the future.

Mumford’s lawyer, Michael Levine, said he was thankful, but didn’t know what prompted the government’s decision.

The incident in question occurred when Mumford’s client Ammon Bundy was acquitted last fall and Mumford was tackled by federal marshals for refusing to stop arguing with the judge.

When United Grain Corporation stepped in for Pendleton Grain Growers last year, purchasing all of the co-op’s old grain infrastructure, the company promised to invest $9 million toward making the facilities more modern and efficient.

Those upgrades are now underway. Among other things, United Grain plans to add two new ground piles near Mission and Helix, and has already installed automated kiosks at the McNary river terminal to help trucks weigh and unload cargo faster.

Jason Middleton, region manager for United Grain, said they are also working to buy 20 more acres from the Port of Umatilla to expand at McNary along the Columbia River, boosting storage capacity by 3-4 million bushels. As for upcountry elevators, Middleton said they will provide space for specialty crops other than wheat, such as beans, canola and barley.

The projects were laid out during a series of grower’s meetings last week in Pendleton, Hermiston and La Grande, giving local farmers an idea of what to expect come next harvest.

“Speed, space and service is what our goals are here,” Middleton said. “We’re trying to repair our infrastructure, and keep up with the grower.”

For 86 years, members relied on PGG for fuel, agronomy, marketing and more. After PGG dissolved on May 2, 2016, the Board of Directors voted to sell its grain assets to United Grain, including the McNary terminal, Alicel rail terminal and upcountry elevators.

United Grain took over the business on June 10, just weeks before wheat harvest began. That didn’t allow much time to focus on improving buildings, though Middleton, who was hired by PGG as the director of grain operations in 2012, said they knew coming in there was work that needed to be done.

“There was just a lack of maintenance on a lot of those projects,” said Middleton, who used to work as PGG’s director of grain operations. “You can go back four decades, at least.”

With that hectic first harvest behind them, Middleton said they are now ready to move forward on infrastructure. The bulk of the money will be spent at McNary, he said, where they recently automated kiosks at the trucking scales. Now, drivers simply swipe a card to bring up their information, and are directed to one of five pits where they can unload grain.

The way scales are set up will allow trucks to flow in one direction, Middleton said, instead of before when drivers had to weigh in and out at the same scale.

“It’s going to save a lot of time, compared to last year,” he said. “There’s no reason trucks couldn’t get in and out anywhere from five to eight minutes, entire process.”

Automation has also come to the elevator control room at McNary, which will make it easier for the operators there to switch between bins and keep wheat segregated. The idea, Middleton said, is to maximize efficiency — the less time farmers spend at the elevator, the more time they have to work in the fields.

That’s also the concept behind ground piles at Mission and Helix. As combines are able to cut wheat faster, Middleton said farmers are using larger trucks to deliver grain, which can be unloaded more quickly at piles as opposed to the old upcountry elevators.

Each pile will store 1.4 million bushes, Middleton said. The goal is to build a third pile near Athena by next year as well, he added.

Finally, a ground pile and automated scales will be installed at the Alicel Terminal near La Grande. Both Alicel and McNary are used for storing and shipping grain, which is hauled by train at Alicel and by river barge at McNary.

“It should just be a lot more of an efficient process,” he said.

As for the upcountry elevators, many of the old wooden buildings have already been closed for safety, Middleton said. Those include Helix, Rew, Mission, Stanton, Elgin, and Holdman.

But some of the metal and concrete elevators will be upgraded, where farmers will be able store crops on demand separate from traditional wheat. With wheat prices as low as they are, Middleton said he expects farmers may be considering alternatives to help pay the bills.

Options are limited in dryland farming, but barley, canola and certain types of beans or peas may be options, depending on the market.

“If there are other options out there, I think guys will be looking at them,” he said.

Some of the “on demand” crop elevators will include Fulton, Sparks, Pilot Rock, Juniper, Adams and Midway. Many of these facilities simply need some routine repairs and maintenance, Middleton said, but won’t require a ton of capital.

By giving farmers more tools come harvest, Middleton said United Grain hopes to become a competitive choice for growers in the region.

“It’s difficult being a farmer now, with margins as tight as they are,” Middleton said. “We want to be their best option.”

SALEM, Ore. (AP) — As the Oregon Legislature considers sweeping cutbacks and tax hikes to close a $1.6 billion budget deficit, an education ballot initiative that voters overwhelmingly approved in November may be on the chopping block before it goes into effect.

A group of education advocates and bipartisan lawmakers are now demanding the Legislature carry out the will of Oregon voters and fully fund the $300 million per-biennium cost as required by Measure 98.

The measure — designed to boost Oregon’s low graduation rates by requiring statewide career-technical education, college credit courses and other dropout-prevention programs at a cost of $800 per high school student — won more than 65 percent of the vote last fall. But because the measure amends state law, rather than the Oregon Constitution, it can be changed by the Legislature.

Aside from Gov. Kate Brown, who supported Measure 98 during campaign season, suggesting in her budget proposal to cut the measure’s funding in half, current talks of any potential changes are speculative with the end of the legislative session still four months out.

But some state lawmakers and officials at Stand for Children, the Portland-based national education nonprofit behind Measure 98, say the matter is urgent as school districts, like the Legislature, are drafting their budgets for the upcoming 2017-19 cycle beginning July 1.

“The voters of Oregon were clear ... what I’m frustrated by is that there are efforts in this building to attempt to water down Measure 98 to make it do something that the voters did not vote for and perhaps even delay its implementation,” Rep. Mark Johnson, a Republican from Hood River, said Monday during a press conference. “I’m not supporting any of those efforts.”

The measure’s $800 per-student funding requirement would pull from uncommitted money in the state’s general fund, the Legislature’s most discretionary spending dollars. That spending mandate is triggered only when a $1.5 billion-jump in revenue exists from the previous budget cycle. In that instance, money would be diverted into a special fund managed by the state Education Department and distributed accordingly to school districts, which would also be monitored and held accountable for how the money is spent.

By offering alternative learning programs, Measure 98 is touted as a way to keep high school students in the classroom who’ve otherwise decided the traditional college route isn’t for them. It drew accolades from groups and leaders across the spectrum during the election, with the exception of public teachers and superintendents’ unions and groups.

Leaders in the private sector say it also helps boost its pool of skilled workers and therefore strengthens the Oregon job market.

“It’s a tough one, right? Voters said they wanted it and I’m not sure what we do,” said House Speaker Tina Kotek. “But I don’t believe the school districts will be ready actually to start spending the money this fall anyway.”

SALEM — Irrigation districts are butting heads with city governments in Oregon over proposed legislation that’s intended to avert conflicts over housing development and stormwater discharge.

Supporters of Senate bills 865 and 866 say the two bills will help prevent urban encroachment from damaging irrigation facilities and water supplies.

“We need this tool so we can avoid fights,” said Marc Thalacker, manager of the Three Sisters Irrigation District, during a March 9 legislative hearing.

Cities and counties would have to provide notice about impending property subdivisions to irrigation districts, drainage districts and similar entities under SB 865.

Districts shouldn’t be surprised by new developments, said Brent Stevenson, manager of the Santiam Water Control District.

“It will only save money in the long run for others,” Stevenson said of SB 865.

When farmland is converted to urban uses, unintended consequences to irrigation systems can arise, said April Snell, executive director of the Oregon Water Resources Congress.

Cities and counties can ward off such problems by getting input from irrigation districts before approving a plat, or map of the new parcels, she said.

“It’s really for the ability of districts to provide the information,” Snell said.

Irrigation districts can encounter serious financial impacts from urban encroachment, while disruptions to water infrastructure can also hurt urban residents, said Mark Landauer, lobbyist for the Special Districts Association of Oregon.

“People tend not to be very happy when their basements get flooded or things of that nature,” he said.

Under SB 866, cities would have to take reasonable steps to ensure stormwater discharged into irrigation canals meets federal and state water quality standards.

Cities would also be held liable for discharing stormwater into canals unless they receive permission from an irrigation district or implement plans to avoid affecting the district.

Proponents of SB 866 say that irrigation districts may not have the facilities to handle additional water from municipal runoff, potentially breaching canals and causing flooding.

Farmers are also under increasing scrutiny regarding food safety and environmental impacts, so they can face liabilities from pollutants found in stormwater, supporters say.

The League of Oregon Cities and several municipal governments oppose both of the bills, arguing they give excessive authority to irrigation districts while imposing unrealistic conditions on cities.

Opponents claim SB 865 is unnecessarily duplicative of existing procedures that many cities already have in place, so it’s unclear how the new requirements would affect these procedures.

The plat approval process is also a late stage for irrigation district to provide review, which is more appropriate during land use planning, opponents say.

As for SB 866, cities would effectively be responsible for all the rain that falls within their boundaries and potentially collect and divert that stormwater, said Tracy Rutten, intergovernmental affairs associate at the League of Oregon Cities.

The bill is “incredibly broad” and would subject cities to more stringent restrictions than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Rutten said.

Stormwater can cross multiple government jurisdictions, which would greatly complicated any permission agreement under SB 866, said David Sawyer, city administrator of Turner, Ore.

That permission can also be revoked under the bill, thus requiring the development of a plan for stormwater to have “zero effect” on irrigation district, he said.

“No impact is a blank check and it’s a little scary,” Sawyer said.