Okanogan County takes aim at environmentalist over wolf protection
The state has its own plan for protecting wolves, even as the feds withdraw. Some are furious that an Eastern Washingtonian with environmental credentials has joined the wildlife commission, which recently adopted the plan.
Tracy Brooks (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Region)/Flickr
A lot of people have eagerly tracked the progress of a gray wolf (known as OR7) that has traveled more than 800 miles from the Wallowas to the Crater Lake region and then, right after Christmas, into northern California — where it became the Golden State's first gray wolf since 1924. Many have also applauded the appearances of new packs in Washington — where, this summer, Washington biologists identified packs in the Teanaway drainage, east of Seattle, and up in Stevens County.
But not everyone welcomes the prospect of a wolf pack in the neighborhood. Take a look at Okanogan County. Or ask Jay Kehne, whose appointment to the state Fish and Wildlife Commission is under fire from some in Okanogan County, where he lives.
Gray wolves were, of course, extirpated from the western United States by the end of World War II. They became charter members of the endangered species list. In 1995, they were re-introduced to Yellowstone National Park. Since then, they have also walked across the Canadian border.
By this time, there are perhaps 1,600 in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. Those states were eager to get wolves off the endangered species list. The Interior Department tried in 2008, and again in 2009 to "de-list" them from protection in Idaho and Montana. Both delistings were shot down by a federal court.
Last spring, in a rider to the legislation that kept the government paying its bills for the rest of the last fiscal year, Congress ordered the secretary of the interior to re-issue the 2009 deslisting rule — and insulated it from judicial review. Hunting seasons for gray wolves opened in Idaho and Montana late last summer.
The Congressional wolf delisting didn't cover the entire West. In Washington, it extends only as far west as Route 97, which runs along the Okanogan River through Omak and Tonasket. West of that line, wolves still have federal protection. And even east of the line, they are protected by the state, which has also listed wolves as an endangered species.
The state started working on a gray wolf management plan in 2007, when federal delisting first looked like an idea whose time was coming soon. A final draft plan came out last July. Within weeks, the Okanogan County commissioners passed a resolution asking the state to take wolves off Washington's endangered species list. Last October, the director of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife declined. On Dec. 3, the state Fish and Wildlife Commission voted unanimously to approve the final plan.
Under the new plan, "recovery" will be achieved when the state has 15 breeding pairs distributed among three recovery areas. (Fifteen breeding pairs means anywhere from 97 to 365 wolves.) Ranchers will get compensated for any known or probable wolf kills. For a known kill, they'll get double the dead animal's market value.
The plan was a compromise. It is a document on which people representing a range of interest groups — including the state farm bureau — have signed off.
There's something to be said for consensus. Of course, not every last potential opponent was at the table, and some people think even 15 breeding pairs would be too many. Like opponents in other parts of the West, those critics worry that wolves will kill or harass livestock (or at least make them wary, which may take their minds off eating enough to slow their weight gain) and kill or harass elk (or at least make them wary, too, which may make them harder to shoot). Some hunters worry that wolves will actually destroy or seriously deplete elk populations.
Experience elsewhere suggests that except for very localized effects on populations already in trouble, those fears are largely fantasy. "The effects that wolves will have on elk, deer, and other ungulate populations and hunter harvest are difficult to predict," the plan says, "but observations from neighboring states suggest that statewide effects will be low, especially during recovery phases."
Washington's wolf wars didn't end when the Fish and Wildlife Commission adopted the plan — unanimously — last month. Before the wolf plan was adopted, Jay Kehne — an Omak resident who has degrees in wildlife biology and soil science — applied online for one of two vacant seats on the Fish and Wildlife Commission. People who knew him sent in letters of recommendation. Shortly after the commissioners voted on the wolf plan, Gov. Chris Gregoire named Kehne to the commission. Then something started hitting the fan.
"GOP seeks to stop Kehne appointment," shouted the Omak-Okanogan County Chronicle's lead headline for Dec. 28. "Can Kehne truly represent us?" asks a column by editor and publisher Roger Harnack. The paper notes that Republican county commissioner Andy Lampe, who wrote Kehne a letter of recommendation, withdrew his endorsement. Nevertheless, local Republicans aren't sure they'll back Lampe for re-election.
And now the county commissioners have sent a letter to the chair of the state Senate's Agriculture, Water & Rural Economic Development Committee "absolutely" opposing Kehne's nomination. His appointment could be rejected by the Senate.
What's the fuss about? As the Commission's press release notes, Kehne "had [a] 31-year career with the U. S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service, including serving as resource conservation and development coordinator for Chelan, Douglas and Okanogan counties and providing conservation assistance to farmers, ranchers and other landowners." Not too much to raise the hackles there; what reddens the necks of some local residents is that he also "serves as Okanogan outreach associate for Conservation Northwest." Conservation Northwest advocates protecting wolves. Anyone who advocates protecting wolves is clearly unfit to represent eastern Washington.
"Being employed by an extreme environmentalist group may lead to the downfall of an embattled Jay Kehne in his bid for a seat on the state Fish and Wildlife Commission," explained the Chronicle's lead story. "Conservation Northwest is headed by Mitch Friedman, a Bellingham-based environmental activist and former Earth First member arrested multiple times for civil disobedience," it explains. "'Jay Kehne is bought and paid for by Conservation Northwest,' 7th Legislative District Rep. Joel Kretz, R-Wauconda, said last week.
"According to Kretz, the Republic Party is demanding that Kehne either walk away from the nomination or quit his job."
"With Gov. Gregoire selecting the members of the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission for the last seven years, it reads like wolf lover's [alumni]," proclaims one letter to the editor. "The commisison has done nothing for big game in Eastern Washington and now, with its wolf plan, has given deer and elk a death sentence."
Another concludes that "last week, a wolf advocate from this area was selected to serve on the state game commission. The wolf really is in the hen house!"
"Jay Kehne stands against my core values and beliefs," writes a third. "If he is appointed to represent Eastern Washington on the state's highest game board, they we have been forsaken."
The Chronicle's characterization of Friedman and his organization contains more than a little irony. Yes, once upon a time, he was an Earth Firster. That was back during the administration of Ronald Reagan. These days, he and Conservation Northwest have been noted — and severely critized — for their efforts to work with ranchers and loggers, to make everybody a winner, to compromise.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Wed, Jan 11, 2:53 a.m. Inappropriate
Perhaps a few facts might enlighten the debate over flooding the forests at Bumping Lake. It's more like 2000 acres of old growth that would get flooded there, not 400, and it is mostly on flat ground, not the steep mountainsides where most other surviving old growth is found. And as for "saving" the Teanaway, there isn't 10,000 acres of old growth there, there isn't even one thousand. The Teanaway lands were owned for decades by Boise Cascade whose policy was to cut trees, not leave them standing.
After Boise sold out the subsequent owners cleaned up what little was left. It's fair to say that the Teanaway is one of the most heavily cutover places in Washington. All anyone is really proposing to do there is a "conservation easement," meaning purchase of "development rights," to prevent the building of McMansions. In case no one has noticed, the market for starter castles has collapsed and they are unlikely to ever get built there no matter what anyone does or doesn't do. A "conservation easement" would have no effect whatever on logging there, not that there is much left to worry about.
Presenting the "saving" of the cutover Teanaway from McMansions that will never be built as somehow mitigating the loss of real forests at Bumping Lake is sheer deception. Has the author of this article ever been to either place, or is he just repeating Conservation Northwest fundraising propaganda?
I'll admit I am having a hard time understanding the logic here. All I can come up with is: Conservation Northwest supports a bad deal on the Yakima, therefore Eastern Washington wolf haters should really love a guy who works for them? Makes sense, I suppose, in its own very convoluted way.
Posted Wed, Jan 11, 6:32 a.m. Inappropriate
In the highly unlikely event that Bumping Lake were ever raised, the amount of classic (big tree) old growth that would be lost is much closer to 400 acres than to 2,000 acres. That would be a grave and tragic asthetic loss, but a modest one in biological terms.
While the 60,000+ acres of the Teanaway includes not even a single acre of big tree old growth that could compare to that at bumping, it does indeed have thousands of scattered acres of older forest habitat. Putting the entire area in public ownership would have the great benefit of precluding residential development (which is a serious long term threat, as the existance of Suncadia attests) and vastly improving forestry practices. The consequences for wildlife ranging from wolves (there's a pack living there now!) to spotted owls would be sweeping.
Moreover, the Yakima deal would also include public acquisition and protection for many thousands of additional acres in the Upper Naches and elsewhere. Plus fish passage at multiple dams. Plus various water conservation measures.
This overwhelmingly compelling math is the reason that the groups engaged in and supporting continued negotiations include The Wilderness Society, American Rivers, National Wildlife Federation, and many more. CNW is a bit player in this, but I'm proud of our position on the Yakima and proud of our overall program.
Some people talk a big game and thump their chests. CNW has a continuing record of major conservation accomplishments (including important roles in the formation and passage of the state's wolf plan). It for that reason, much more than the distractions of my actions from 25 years ago, that I periodically get under the skin of the Far Right in the Okanogan.
To the main point, Jay Kehne is an upstanding American and will make a great fish and wildlife commissioner. Thanks to Dan Chasan for a great article.
Posted Wed, Jan 11, 9:08 a.m. Inappropriate
This issue is so much bigger than the Wolf. The wolf is actually a side story to why this appointment should never have occurred. Mr. Kehne and the organization in which he works want to make this all about wolves. This is about property rights, conservation easements, wildlife cooridors, yukon to yellowstone, the continued uses of public dollars to purchase private lands and placing them into government ownership in direct competition with neighboring farmers and ranchers. Its about how to manage the affairs of the Washington Fish and Wildlife issues as they impact not only Eastern Washington.
Mr. Kehne could make all of this news media go away today. If he is the man Mr. Friedman has described then he should not take his seat on the commission or make any decision for the commission until he has been confirmed by the Senate. I think what you will find is that many in Eastern Washington would oppose such an appointment and you would really find out that Mr. Kehne does not have the support that he states in each article. Mr. Kehne says he will base his decisions on science well then lets base our decision on character and have Mr. Kehne directly call on the Senators to hold his confirmation hearing as soon as possible, in the call for the confirmation Mr. Kehne would acknowledge he will not take the seat or vote on any decision until such time. Calling for his confirmation hearing would give everyone their time to comment on the appointment, if he is then confirmed all can say he was fully vetted and the people would then have to live with the decision.
The problem is that Mr. Kehne will not call for the hearing and will just state as he already has the most of the members of the commission have never been confirmed and so he should be able to serve. That is a statement that tells me right there that Mr. Kehne knows he does not have the support to get the confirmation.
Posted Wed, Jan 11, 12:59 p.m. Inappropriate
While 3 members of the F & W Commission must each be from western and eastern Washington (with the other three members "at large"), they do not "represent" different portions of the state. Rather, "In making these appointments, the governor shall seek to maintain a balance reflecting all aspects of fish and wildlife, including representation recommended by organized groups representing sportfishers, commercial fishers, hunters, private landowners, and environmentalists." RCW 77.04.040. Members represent interests and perspectives, not geographic areas.
This is all just grandstanding for the extreme right base. Kehne will serve on the commission and the Okanogan County commissioners will waste lots of taxpayer dollars defying the growth management act before getting slapped down in the legal arena.
Posted Wed, Jan 11, 1:17 p.m. Inappropriate
I liked this story. I live in the Okanogan and am pleased to see a story full of the important facts, and comprehensive treatment of the important issues facing us there.
As for Mr. Kehne, he is thoroughly professional, and extremely well trained and experienced for the position. Furthermore, we are lucky to have him step up to do such a job, in the face of the right wing bullying one can get in Okanogan County. Jay Kehne, in fact, may be able to do much to build much needed bridges in the Okanogan, between the old and new residents, all of whom dearly love the place, and have the grit to make a living there.
As Wallace Stenger said, of the West in general, and it applies to the Okanogan in particular, "We need a society to match the scenery."
Posted Wed, Jan 11, 2:10 p.m. Inappropriate
Mr. Chasan is spot on with his assessment of Conservation Northwest as a group that is doing its best to “make everybody a winner, to compromise.” Our groups, American Rivers, Trout Unlimited, National Widlife Federation and The Wilderness Society, in partnership with groups like Conservation Northwest, are trying to do that same thing with the Yakima Integrated Plan.
The Plan sets forth an ambitious package of environmental restoration and protection and water management improvements that will leave the Yakima Basin’s ecosystem far better off than would be attainable absent the plan, which is supported by the Yakama Nation, Irrigation Districts, local county commissioners and others. New water storage at Bumping Lake is only one part of this comprehensive plan, which also includes:
• Protection of 46,000 acres of land in the Teanaway that is threatened by development – while all but around 10,000 acres of this land have been heavily and recently logged, preventing development will allow for restoration of the Teanaway and the prevention of otherwise inevitable development (the real estate market will not remain in the tank forever) that would preclude restoring salmon and steelhead to this area, which has the potential to be the best steelhead habitat in the upper Yakima watershed;
• Fishery restoration designed to bring hundreds of thousands of spawning salmon and steelhead back into the basin through providing passage at six federal dams (including the Bumping Lake dam) that have blocked fish from headwaters spawning grounds for a century, extensive habitat restoration in both tributaries and mainstem rivers, and better managing flows for fish. This will help address the treaty fishery claims of the Yakama Nation and provide an enormous boon to the recreational economy and ecological health of the basin;
• Designation of over 20,000 acres of new wilderness areas, 12 new wild and scenic rivers, and over 140,000 acres of new national recreation areas. This will protect land and rivers from development, keep water cold and clean for farming, fish and families, while ensuring that people have a place to play, hunt, and fish now and into the future;
• Robust water conservation and water marketing programs;
• Re-operation of existing irrigation diversion dams to benefit salmon, and possible removal of two such dams; and
• Groundwater recharge and improved groundwater management.
The result of the plan would be a win for everyone – irrigators, conservationists, homeowners, working farms and recreationists, among others. We can choose to continue down a path that seeks a perfect solution to combat water shortages and ensure land protections – which will never come in this day and age – or we can choose to sit down and work something out that benefits all now. The road to collaboration isn’t easy to follow and we recognize that the Yakima Plan isn’t perfect, but we see the plan as the best solution to come along and we’re all committed to making it work.
--American Rivers, Trout Unlimited, National Wildlife Federation and The Wilderness Society
Posted Wed, Jan 11, 2:44 p.m. Inappropriate
For a good historical perspective on Okanogan politics (and a great story), read "The Goldmark Case," by William L. Dwyer. The story is about the attack on state representative John Goldmark during his campaign for reelection in 1962. He was driven from office by hateful right-wing extremists ("He's a Commie!"). Goldmark sued for libel and won before a jury in Okanogan County. Dwyer was Goldmark's lawyer (and became a greatly respected U.S. District Judge in Seattle). Ultimately, the verdict did not stand because of the intervening U.S. Supreme Court decision in New York Times v Sullivan concerning libel/slander of public officials--it's a tough case to prove...
The man who replaced John Goldmark was another Democrat (yes, they still elected Ds in Okanogan in the 60s), Joe Haussler. In the 1975 legislature, Haussler was chair of the house local government committee, and was a prime sponsor of Governor Evans' request bill to conserve forest and agriculture lands (yes, in the 70s there were still progressive Republicans). Hearings were held, but property rights whiners killed it, and GMA did not happen for another fifteen years.
I agree with Steve E: Okanogan County appears determined to fight GMA compliance at public expense. It might help if the current commissioners carefully reviewed the history of their county and of the state grange, both of which were actually progressive in earlier years. Truly "conservative" policies are in the long term best interest of rural agricultural, forestry, and tourism dependent communities. Property rights ideologues ignore good governance to push their fear based agenda.
Posted Thu, Jan 12, 12:45 p.m. Inappropriate
Yes, louploup! But let's not forget the tragic actual attacks that followed those personal attacks. Spurred on by the anti-semitic, anti-communist rhetoric aimed at John Goldmark 20 years earlier, a mentally ill man turned his attention on Goldmark's son, murdering him and his whole family. We should not allow press (I would argue that moniker doesn't often apply to the Omak Chronicle), to push slanderous agendas against real people in their communities, with families. The Chronicle is not reporting, they are proselytizing for the people that hold sway with them, a small rightwing crowd. I feel for Mr. Kehne and his family right now,a nd hope they are hearing from the moderate members of their community that they are supported.
Posted Thu, Jan 12, 4:08 p.m. Inappropriate
You have chosen to include the statement by Futurewise that "significant number of Okanogan County’s subbasins and streams are already overappropriated". I am wondering if you have any links to scientific studies that support their statement? If none exist, then I suggest you refrain from quoting unsubstantiated claims by advocacy groups with a political agenda.
Posted Sat, Jan 14, 9:35 a.m. Inappropriate
"..Experience elsewhere suggests that except for very localized effects on populations already in trouble, those fears are largely fantasy." Well, maybe; a family member who ranches in another state reports that even coyotes kill newly born calves. It's a minuscule loss ( "localized effect") unless, of course, it is your calf. The same equation applies to wolves who can kill adult sheep. The total numbers are small but if you lose five out of one hundred you want to kill some wolves and I would argue that ranchers should be licensed to do just that.
Posted Fri, Jan 20, 10:52 a.m. Inappropriate
Herb--The closure of many streams in Okanogan County to further appropriation is a legal fact, based on extensive scientific work by the Department of Ecology (and others) over a period of many years. Closures on the Methow side of the county are listed at WAC 173-548, and for the east side at WAC 173-549. The latter includes: "a partial year closure from May 1 to October 1 will be established on all perennial streams in the basin except those with established minimum instream flows as described in WAC 173-549-020" [exception concerns Okanogan and Similkameen Rivers].
If you go to Ecology's web site, you can find numerous studies and documents going back at least into the 70s supporting those appropriation closures; the statement in the article is substantiated to the point of being part of the fabric of life Okanogan County. Ask any junior right older on one of the ditches in a low water year.
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.