Idaho Hunter Illegally Kills Collared Oregon Wolf, OR 9; Idaho Fish and Game Shrugs

[Thankfully, this mess was edited 2/11/12]



Gray Wolf (Canis lupis) [USF&WS Photo]

Today, Idaho and their Governor Butch Otter, along with some of their Fish and Game Department officials, are to wolf reestablishment and conservation, as Alabama and Bull Conner were to desegregation and the struggle for the rights of African Americans during the 1960's civil rights campaigns. The applicable words in this instance are ecological bigotry, as opposed to racial bigotry, and the motivation is the political support and special interest economic gain of hunters and the ranching industry.

You may remember the history, from the early 20th century, of the extermination of wolves, and the war by stockmen and the government on other predators as well:



U.S. Department of Agriculture Year Book for 1920



“Evidence that Uncle Sam’s Hunters Get results” U.S. Department of Agriculture Year Book for 1920

For more background please read:
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2007
Wolves, Prison Labor, NPR

Idaho's political leaders, in an effort to please livestock producers and hunters, have to date encouraged the killing 290 wolves since they allowed the hunting of wolves with gun and trap. Unfortunately, wolf OR 9, from the travel oriented family of wolves called the Imnaha Pack, in North Eastern Oregon, made the mistake of crossing the Snake River into Idaho, and ultimately encountered one of the West's, in my opinion, ecologically ignorant, and culturally damaged coyote "hunters," who was out entertaining himself during a day dedicated to the pursuit of bloodsport killing. He ended up with a " trophy."

The photo of the hunter and his trophy in the following article says it all--how proud he was to have drained the life out of an Oregon endangered species--and with an expired wolf tag no less. [The human species Homo sapiens contains two major subspecies; Homo sapiens ssp. hypocritcus and Homo sapiens ssp. desructivus--this one appears to be destructivus, but could be a hybrid betwen the two, like Governor Otter.]:

The photo at the Wallowa County Chieftain ( now 2nd link below) has apparently been taken down, but you can still (2/22/12) find it here:

Birds & Wolves post with with OR 9 and the hunter who killed him.

Idaho hunter shoots former Imnaha Pack wolf

See also:

Male wolf OR-9 from Imnaha pack killed by Idaho hunter with expired tag
Published: Friday, February 10, 2012, 1:22 PM     Updated: Friday, February 10, 2012, 1:48 PM

And, more importantly:

Idaho hunter kills the brother of famous wolf that wandered to California
Submitted by Rocky Barker on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 4:31pm, updated on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 4:36pm

But the officer let the hunter off with a warning after checking out his story, said Mike Keckler, Fish and Game communications chief. All he would have had to do was buy a new tag when he brought the wolf in, though it would be illegal.

“He could have done that and we’d have never known,” Keckler said to justify the officer’s decision.

We all know that laws are sometimes, or is that often, selectively enforced. What would happen to a hard-pressed poor person if they had taken a deer or elk with an expired tag? Well, you know. . . .

Here is an Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife (ODFW) video of the Imnaha pack from Nov. 12, 2009. OR 9 is likely one of the young wolves seen in this video.

Imnaha Wolf Pack

Video shows 10 wolves in the Imnaha pack-
A video taken by ODFW on Nov. 12, 2009 in the Imnaha Wildlife Management Unit (east of Joseph, Ore. in Wallowa County) shows at least 10 wolves make up a pack that ODFW has been monitoring since June 2008. The video was taken from an adjacent ridge across a canyon and shows a mixture of gray and black individual wolves moving upslope.

Here is a short video clip of another Imnaha pack wolf, OR 3, who dispersed into areas where wolves are Federally protected, north of Prineville, OR, but to the best of my knowledge, has not been located for a few months. This wolf may be dead too.

Short Clip of Or-3
Imnaha 3-year-old male wolf, May 2011


Now Idaho is considering a bill that would escalate the level of their war on wolves:

Idaho rancher's bill would OK untralights, use of live bait for wolf control

BOISE, Idaho —
. . . .
Under Sen. Jeff Siddoway's plan introduced Thursday, ranchers whose livestock are molested or killed by wolves could employ powered parachutes, as well as traps baited with live animals, to target the predators within 36 hours without a permit.
After that, they could get permits giving them up to 60 days to pursue offending wolf packs.
Idaho now allows gunners aboard powered parachutes to shoot foxes and coyotes.
But shooting wolves from ultralights is forbidden, with wolves classified as big game.
. . . .

See also:
Beastly bingo: Bills allowing wolf killing, defining dangerous dogs and establishing felony animal cruelty offense introduced
Submitted by Dan Popkey on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 8:47am, updated on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 8:49am

Idaho is one of three states without a felony animal cruelty statute, but the livestock industry has so far rebuffed efforts to toughen the law. In 2010, a felony cruelty bill passed the Senate 34-1 but died in a House Committee.
. . . .
Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Jeff Siddoway, a Republican sheep rancher from Terreton, authored the bill that would make it easier for a rancher to kill wolves after an attack on his flock.
Siddoway began by declaring a conflict of interest, . . . .

and

Wolf hunt numbers up; state wants them higher-- Wildlife officials say further control needed

. . . . [Idaho] Department Deputy Director Jim Unsworth said the agency is still worried about wolves in the Lolo zone in northern Idaho.

"We are still having excess mortality on cow elk up there," Unsworth said. "We need to reduce wolf populations."
Cow and calf mortality rates in that region stand at roughly 20 percent, most of which has been from wolf predation, Unsworth said. He said he'd like to reduce that rate to 10 percent from all causes, including other predators such as mountain lions.
. . . .
Garrick Dutcher, program manager for wolf advocacy group Living With Wolves, said the control actions might not have the desired effect. Dutcher argued that predator populations respond to prey populations, rather than the other way around. In other words, fewer wolves doesn't mean more elk.

In Yellowstone National Park, a reintroduced population of wolves grew rapidly as it fed on an "out-of-control" elk population.
"In the park, the wolf population peaked at 174," he said. "Now it's down to 90-something. Now that they have picked off all the easy elk, the wolf population has leveled out.". . . .

(Several of the articles above came to me via Wally Sykes at Northeast Oregon Ecosystems.)

OK. So now, with the wolves back, nature has taken its course, and the ecosystem can begin to recover from misguided human "management."

Some ask how wolf restoration and conservation leads to healthy ecosystems. The two videos and two articles below provide some answers.

Lords of Nature - Trailer


Please See Also:
Predators, Bill Ripple


And the many educational links at:
Trophic Cascades in Terrestrial Ecosystems

And:
Linking Wolves and Plants: Aldo Leopold on Trophic Cascades

And, from Defenders of Wildlife;

Take Action
Will You Pay for Idaho's Aerial Wolf Kills?

Idaho officials want to recklessly gun down wolves from aircraft -- and they want you to pay for it.

State officials want the Department of Agriculture's Wildlife Services to track down and kill up to two thirds of wolves in northeast Idaho. It's an unscientific plan aimed at artificially boosting big game populations.

Already, nearly 62,000 Defenders' supporters have urged President Obama not to use federal resources to carry out Idaho's misguided wolf cull.

_

Louise du Toit - Ode to the Wolves - Wolf Paintings by Vincent A Kennard


ODFW Photo

Congress Moves Environmental Protection Back Toward the Stone Age (or at least back to the early 1900's)

A palpable hatred for both predators and other “varmints” is revealed in articles printed in the U.S. Department of Agriculture Year Book for 1920, where classics like “Hunting Down Stock Killers” and “Death To The Rodents” can be found.
See:

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2007
Wolves, Prison Labor, NPR
and
MONDAY, MAY 11, 2009
Wolves Again. . . .
This is a in part a re-post of a blog from December 6, 2007 about wolves and the persecution of predators.
__

Wording of the anti-wolf stealth rider placed into budget bill by Montana's Sen. Tester and Idaho's Sen. Simpson:

SEC. 1713. Before the end of the 60-day period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall reissue the final rule published on April 2, 2009 (74 Fed. Reg. 15123 et seq.) without regard to any other provision of statute or regulation that applies to issuance of such rule. Such reissuance (including this section) shall not be subject to judicial review and shall not abrogate or otherwise have any effect on the order and judgment issued by the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming in Case Numbers 09–CV–118J and 09–CV–138J on November 18, 2010

In other words, congressional passage of the rider reinstates the Interior Department's/US Fish & Wildlife Service, April 2, 2009 anti-wolf final de-listing rule that had been subsequently ruled illegal by the courts. Additionally, the Congress, in passing the budget bill with the rider attached, attempts to remove any review of the action by the Judicial branch of government, even to test its constitutionality. Where are these people taking us when they tell us they can pick and choose what legislation can, or cannot, be reviewed by the courts?

A friend sent out this brief discussion from Legal Planet; the Environmental Law and Policy Blog, and we can expect to be hearing more on the legal issues in the future.

The bigger loser here is the integrity of our environmental laws. This rider, a joint effort of Senator Jon Tester (D-Mont.) and Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), is an exercise in arrogance, cowardice and congressional overreach. Oh, and let’s not forget hypocrisy: both sides of the political aisle have complained incessantly about the evils of policy riders attached to must-pass appropriations bills, yet both sides continue to attach riders left and right. (If you need examples of congressional hypocrisy, just watch any random episode of The Daily Show.) Expect to hear a lot more about harmful environmental riders in the coming budget showdowns.
. . . .
Attaching this rider to the appropriations bill, instead of debating a separate policy bill, is cowardly. Assuming that Congress knows more about the wolves than all of the participants in the litigation is arrogant. For example, this rider is worse than the rejected settlement, in that it lacks any requirement for independent scientific review. But worst of all, whoever wrote the rider seems to believe that Congress stands above judicial review.

Please see:
Of Wolves and Men. APRIL 12, 2011, by Rhead Enion for entire article.
__

Federal budget vote splits Oregon delegation

WASHINGTON – A controversial budget to keep the federal government operating for the rest of the fiscal year fractured Oregon's delegation Thursday, with Democrats Peter DeFazio and Kurt Schrader voting for the measure along with Republican Greg Walden while Reps. Earl Blumenauer and David Wu opposed it.

The jagged fault lines extended to the Senate, where Democrats Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley (Merkley voted for the bill) split their votes. Wyden voted against the bill because it included language that would eliminate a provision in the health care law that allows 300,000 workers to shop for their health insurance on the open market.

__

One reaction from N. E. Oregon wolf advocate Wally Sykes

"The Tester/Simpson Rider delisting wolves is a body-blow to the Endangered Species Act, a cynical ploy by the Obama Administration to try and save the seat of Montana Senator John Tester. It's the first legislative delisting in the 38-year history of the ESA, and sets a terrible precedent of using politics instead of science to delist a species. It denies citizens any say in this delisting because it excludes it from judicial review. 1200 scientists have written a letter to Obama protesting this act. Harry Reid promised a budget without riders, and the President himself promised to safeguard environmental policies, and this is how they keep their word?

"The delisting includes the wolves of eastern Oregon, which will now be subject to the Oregon Wolf Plan and protected as a state endangered species, but the biological reserve for our wolves is Idaho, where the population could be cut to 300 from about 800. This is not enough to maintain genetic diversity. Furthermore, the ESA is vital in protecting vast swathes of forest, wetlands, rivers, watersheds and desert. All this is now put at risk by this ill-considered political maneuver."

__

From The Center For Biological Diversity

For Immediate Release, April 14, 2011

Contact: Kierán Suckling, (520) 275-5960

Congress Approves Wolf-killing Rider in Budget Act to Aid Montana Democrat’s Re-election

Votes Mark the First Time that Endangered Species Act Protections Have Been Removed by Politicians

WASHINGTON— In part to aid the re-election campaign of Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), Congress today approved a budget bill that includes a rider removing wolves in Montana, Idaho, Washington, Oregon and Utah from the federal endangered species list and sets the stage for near-term delisting in Wyoming. The votes mark the first time that Congress has bypassed the science-based process of the Endangered Species Act and stripped federal protections from an endangered species.

The rider was submitted by Tester and Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) and approved by Democratic leadership in the U.S. Senate. The rider not only eliminates federal protection for wolves but sets a dangerous precedent for other politicians looking to halt recovery of endangered species in their home states.

“This is a dark day for wolves and for all species relying on federal protections for their survival,” said Kierán Suckling, executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity. “Senator Tester included the rider as a ploy to score political points in his 2012 reelection campaign, and now wolves and other species will have to pay the price.”

Delisting removes federal protections from an endangered species and hands management over to state control. The states with the most wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains, Idaho and Montana, intend to kill many of the 1,270 animals last counted in their two states, which include approximately 80 breeding pairs. The U.S. Department of Agriculture is likely to ramp up aerial gunning of wolves and campaigns that destroy pups in their dens.

The rider approved today by the Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives bans citizens from challenging the wolf delisting decision, even if wolf numbers plummet toward zero, while preserving anti-wolf litigation brought by the state of Wyoming and other parties.

Since the Endangered Species Act became law in 1973, Congress has never intervened to override the law and remove a plant or animal from federal protection.

“Congressional delisting without the opportunity to restore protections threatens to bring us back to the days when wolves and other wildlife were systematically poisoned on public lands,” said Suckling. “We ask President Obama to veto the federal budget to ensure that an endangered species is not massacred; that the Endangered Species Act is not gutted; and that the science, not politics, determines which species benefit from federal protections.”

__

High Country News
The Range Blog
Who's afraid of the big, bad wolf?
By Heather Hansen, Red Lodge Clearing House

. . . .
Conventional arguments become spurious statements when scrutinized in the light of day:

1) Wolves are killing huge numbers of livestock

In Montana, from 1995 to 2007, wolves killed an average 67 livestock animals (cattle, sheep, llamas, goats and horses) per year. Last year, 97 cows/calves were killed, out of 2.5 million head of cattle in the state.

In Idaho, in 2009, wolves killed 90 cows/calves and 344 sheep. The number of sheep seems high, until you consider that sheep producers reported losing 56,000 animals that year for reasons other than predators, such as disease and weather. They also reported losing another 18,800 animals to all predators, mostly coyotes. Eagles were blamed for another 600 sheep deaths. If economics was a real argument, why not target the more destructive hunters--grizzlies, eagles, foxes and coyotes?

Now, I’ve seen a wolf tear out the guts of an animal and it’s not pleasant, but I’ve also seen hamburgers. The loss of a negligent amount of livestock to wolves seems like the price of doing this kind of business. . . . .

Please read entire article for other good info.
__

Some interesting statistics about Rocky Mountain Gray Wolves From OPB/Ecotrope:

Number of confirmed Montana sheep killed by wolves: 67

Number sheep producers reported lost from other causes (i.e. disease, weather): 49,000

Number they reported lost to all predators: 17,800

Amount of money the feds spent on Northern Rockies wolf management last year: $4,566,000

Amount the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife spent the last two years: $480,000

Amount paid to Montana ranchers for 369 livestock losses to wolves in 2009: $143,000

Amount cattlemen say they’ll need to start a compensation program in Oregon: $750,000

For the whole list and other good information, see Gray wolves: By the numbers.
__

Wallowa Chieftan Article on Wally Sykes (NE Oregon Ecosystems) Wolf Testimony in Salem.

Sykes: Some of my testimony is covered above. The balance is below:
We have 35 million acres of public land, half our state, in vast contiguous tracts. These lands protect our biodiversity, our watersheds, our ancient American connection to wilderness and wildness. The wolf restores much that has been degraded there, an effect clearly shown in Yellowstone and elsewhere. The wolf is good for our land and for our souls.

Successful livestock operations are the norm in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Minnesota, British Columbia, and Alberta – all in wolf country. Management techniques and non-lethal tools minimize conflicts. Compensation plans defray losses. Government, organizational and private contributors provide the hardware, the expertise and the labor to employ non-lethal measures.

In Wallowa County, fladry (flagging hung from an electrified fencing wire), RAG boxes (devices that create noise and visual distraction when triggered by a radio-collared wolf), carcass removal, hazers and range riders have ALL been provided by a combination of these agents.

Last year few of these measures were taken. But this year, 10 miles of fladry are out, and RAG boxes are up where they’ll do the most good. Hazers are on the Zumwalt, radio receivers have been given to ranchers so they’ll know when wolves are near. Wolves have been collared with both GPS and telemetry collars, and stock-growers are constantly updated with wolf locations and movements.

Wolves benefit the northeast Oregon economy. Wildlife watching is a booming industry. Wolf-watchers bring $35 million a year to the area around Yellowstone. Wallowa County saw an influx of tourists last year attracted by our wolves and more will comes this year. New jobs are available – Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife specialist and technicians, hazers, range riders, fladry fencers, even local photographers have seen new work from wolves.

__

I want to take a moment and thank the Senators from the 6th smallest state in the "Union," with fewer people than the city of Dallas, Texas, for showing Montana, the state where my father was born, to be the thoughtless, insensitive, mean, greedy, and barbaric state that it apparently has become, not unlike much of the rest of the rural west, for placing the anti-wolf stealth rider in the Budget bill.
_____

Other Ranching News

Sage Grouse Prevail

Advocates for the West
Date: 04/14/2011

Sage Grouse Prevail - A federal judge has ordered BLM to close to livestock grazing 17 allotments in the Jarbidge Field Office in southwestern Idaho, and has given Simplot Livestock and other permittees about two weeks to remove all livestock from the closed areas. Animating the court's decision was the continuing collapse of sage-grouse populations and habitat. The Court has ordered an evidentiary hearing on Simplot's motion to lift the injunction, and thus this 7 year-old case is just getting started. Stay tuned.

__

Louise du Toit - Ode to the Wolves - Wolf Paintings by Vincent A Kennard

Watch on YouTube

Baker City--All Cops On the Poor, All the Time!

Persecuting the Old & Poor--I feel so much safer now!
[Edited 4/9/11]

If the Baker City Council, City Manager Mike Kee (& ex Police Chief of Ontario, OR), the "Justice" Court, and Baker City Police Department, have ever, and I mean ever, overstepped the bounds of moral, ethical, civil, and sensible human conduct, it was during the last month or four, when code enforcement officer Shannon Regan and Chief Wynn Lohner, allowed the police, under the color of law, using a very misguided and classist intstrument in the form of City Ordinance 3292 , to persecute two older, 80 plus year old people, and a disabled tenant, on Court Street in our "fair" town of Baker City. Their "crime?" Allowing "stuff" to be accumulated on their already ramshackle old property in an out of the way poor neighborhood that is already full of "stuff" and ramshackle old properties. Hang' em high, right?

In a supposedly "democratic" country where the Wall Street fat cats go free after causing a global collapse, and where we deny millions of our people basic health care (& etc.), where "You have 25 percent—almost 25 percent of the income in the upper one percent," (Stiglitz, Democracy Now!), and where BakerCity's own infrastructure is crumbling, Baker City spends tax dollars persecuting the poor. You can read it every day in the "crime" reports. Some of the folks are actually potential threats, but "stuff" piling up on the property of 80+ year olds in an out of the way poor section of town next to a dilapidated industrial zone? I'm sorry, but Baker City government has run amok.

See Baker City Herald:
Code enforcement conundrum

The article above is a must read for at least part of the story.

See also City Manager, ex-Police Chief Mike Kee touting it as an achievement:
Baker City Weekly Report, April 8, 2011.

Please notice in the city's photos that poor is still poor, ramshackle is still ramshackle (Although they cherry-picked the "after" photos.), even after the city ran up incomplete charge of $1,780, not including your taxpayer dollars for the officer's time for the persecution.

This is the latest evolution of the classist persecution of poor people that began most visibly when the police and City Council went after a disabled life-long Baker City resident back in 2009.

Background articles:

SUNDAY, MAY 17, 2009
Property Maintenance Jihad Targets Disabled Life-long Baker City Resident

FRIDAY, JUNE 5, 2009
Democracy In Baker City, Plus Calder Update (YouTube)

MONDAY, JANUARY 11, 2010
Law, Order, and Perhaps a Little Justice?


After the Ron Calder fiasco, the City Council, composed of business people, an old locally grown "Judge," a well off retired government employee, a mindless ex-sheriff's deputy, and a librarian, passed a tightened ordinance that they believe allows them to continue the persecution of the poor in Baker City. That is the ordinance that the police and the "Justice" Court used to go after defenseless poor and (really) old people recently. Given that the number of police, and their budget, in some measure depends upon "crimes" prosecuted and "prevented," I believe the ex-police chief City Manager uses these attacks on old people, and other incidents, in an effort to pad the police budget. It used to be called Fascism, now it is business as usual.

Please note that the ordinance, written to please some well off property owners, realtors, and hopeless anal-retentives, as well as the Council, says that:

"The general rule of nuisance law as established by centuries of legal precedent is that no one has absolute freedom in the use of his or her property, but is restrained by the coexistence of equal rights in his or her neighbor to the peaceful, safe, and enjoyable use of their property, so that each, in exercising his or her right, must do no act which causes injury to his neighbor.

The City Council further finds that unsafe, unsanitary, and otherwise improperly maintained premises and structures within the City of Baker City adversely affect the value, utility, and habitability of the property within the city as a whole. In addition to the obvious hazards which these conditions pose to public health, safety, and welfare; they specifically cause substantial damage to adjoining and nearby property."

The Council has added the clauses, of questionable legal validity, that "otherwise improperly maintained premises and structures within the City of Baker City adversely affect the value, utility, and habitability of the property within the city as a whole." and "they specifically cause substantial damage to adjoining and nearby property." Hopefully, the poor among us will find the resources to contest the legal complexities and vagueness of the claims, and the corollary that in order to live in peace with the rich or otherwise comfortable, we must not adversely affect the value of their property (even if we don't possess the will and money to do otherwise).
__

George Carlin - It's a big club and you ain't in it

Stop the Selective Persecution

This particular article will be a work in progress, because, as usual, I don't have time to write. Butterflies and work calling today & tomorrow. :-) There is a need, however, to at least put up some information from Beverly Calder's side of the story with regard to Friday's article ("Sidewalk dots spark controversy" on their website http://www.bakercityherald.com ) in the Herald. This morning's post includes more of the ordinance in question, as well as some e-mails that cast serious doubt on the story coming out of City Hall and dutifully printed in the Herald article. They are placed below so that the public can reach an informed conclusion about this sad episode. I will post more as information becomes available, and as time permits.

It seems that City Manager Brocato and Mayor Petry can’t be content with frittering away the budget surplus, by, among other things, recruiting expensive “rock stars” to city government, giving extravagant and unwarranted raises to close city staff, and by improving the airport playground for people who are wealthy like them. Now, in my humble opinion, they seem to want to amuse themselves by bullying Councilor Calder out of public service with a campaign of spurious charges, mean-spirited public statements and threats of censure.

Last Friday’s article in the Herald didn’t print the title of the ordinance or put the bogus charges in the context of the entire ordinance, so it would be easy for the public to get an inaccurate picture of what is occurring, especially in light of the inane quotes from Brocato and Petry. Ordinance NO. 2893 is titled: “AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR A COMPREHENSIVE REVISION OF CITY REGULATIONS REGARDING TRAFFIC REGULATIONS; REPEALING ORDINANCE 2404 AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.” A quick reading reveals that it is about regulating pedestrian and vehicle traffic, as well as parking. It has nothing to do with controlling what someone poster paints on the sidewalk in front of their business during one of our city's summer festivities.

In exercising their animosity towards Calder, the Mayor & City Manager are making a really lame attempt to charge her with violating an ordinance that has nothing to do with the "crime" she was supposed to have committed. This isn't the first time the City has done this. According to the article:

Brocato wrote in an e-mail to councilors that the painting of the colored dots is not the first time the sidewalk in front of Calder's store has been an issue. She also was cited for violating Ordinance 3030, stemming from tables and chairs she placed in front of her store.

In a 2007 Baker Justice Court brief she filed on her own behalf in that case, Calder relied on the language of the ordinance itself, which says that people can't store personal property on the sidewalk unless it's "equipment placed on the sidewalk in the normal course of business by an authorized franchisee of the City, so long as such property does not materially affect the right of pedestrian travel."

The city, Brocato wrote in his e-mail, withdrew from that case.

Well, apparently that last part isn't true, at least according to Calder. It would seem to be a serious distortion of the truth on Brocato's part, because Cader says she actually WON the case! Ay Yi Yi....

Additionally, there is a selective prosecution aspect to this as not only is the ordinance not applicable to Calder's "dots,' but it is applicable to a sign in front of Councilor Dorrah's business on Campbell Street (Yorks).

There is more to be said, but for now, it will have to be enough to post some pertinent e-mails, most of the ordinance (for context), and pictures of the sign in that was in front of Yorks on Friday.
________________________
E-mail 1.
-------
From: Steve Brocato [mailto:sbrocato@bakercity.com]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 10:58 AM
To: 'Andrew Bryan'; 'Bev Calder'; 'Dennis Dorrah'; 'Gail Duman'; 'Jeff Petry'; 'Sam Bass'; 'Steve Brocato'; Terry Schumacher
Subject: Sidewalk painting


Mayor:

It is illegal to paint or hinder sidewalks especially in a public right of way. In the state code, it is considered public mischief. In the city ordinance, it is illegal to deface a sidewalk (ordinance 2893, section 6). I have conferred with the city attorney on the application of the law.

Councilor Calder in my tenure as city manager, has violated the law regarding sidewalks on three occasions:

In the first incidence when a citation was issued regarding the sandwich boards, after spending city dollars with the city attorney and police time on the legal issue following a challenge in court by C. Calder, we withdrew and left the case unchallenged. The irony is that the councilor both at HBC and as a councilor supported the city ordinance regarding sandwich boards then challenged its legality in court.

The second was for the Elkhorn Bike rally, when after receiving complaints about ”painting” on the sidewalk in front of Bella, our Director of Public Works was rebuffed by the Councilor Calder. We opted to ignore the situation hoping it would go away and thus avoided confrontation.

In the current incident, I would like to avoid the obvious dilemma of creating a political platform at this time nor do I want a debate with any councilor. However, we are now receiving complaints (including complaints from retailers) about pricing advertising being “painted” on the sidewalks in front of Bella and find the issue unavoidable. The complaints include the accusation that a councilor is being unfairly exempted from the laws “that everyone else has to follow”. We have tried enforcement in the first incident and tried to ignore the second. Neither approach is working. I ask for direction from a collective Council on how to proceed: enforce the law by issuing a citation and turning this issue over to the City Attorney; or suggest to Council that we change the law to accommodate painting on the sidewalks.

Please let me know your collective opinion.
Steve Brocato
City Manager
Baker City, Oregon
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.526 / Virus Database: 270.5.2/1561 - Release Date: 7/18/2008 6:35 PM
_______________________
E-mail 2.
-------
From: Jeff Petry
To: 'Steve Brocato' ; 'Andrew Bryan' ; 'Bev Calder' ; 'Dennis Dorrah' ; 'Gail Duman' ; 'Jeff Petry' ; 'Sam Bass' ; 'Terry Schumacher'
Cc: jjacoby@bakercityherald.com ; 'Deby'
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 11:59 AM
Subject: RE: Sidewalk painting

Council,

The Chief of Police has been beyond tolerant in this situation.
The position of Councilor does not give a you carte blanche to break our laws (our ordinances). This type of attitude and conduct should not be tolerated. It's ridiculous and sad that this would even be an issue. This is childish and arrogant behavior. A Councilor is SUPPOSED to be a leader in abidng by the law while striving to a beacon for our fellow citizens to follow. This conduct is shameful.
It is obvious to me that a citation should be issued.
If this conduct continues, I will ask Council to set this matter as an agenda item for discussion.
Sincerely,

Jeff Petry

Mayor
City of Baker City
jdpetry1@qwestoffice.net
_________________________
E-mail 3.
-------
From: Gail Duman [mailto:sprouts@uci.net]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 9:42 PM
To: Jeff Petry; 'Steve Brocato'; 'Andrew Bryan'; 'Bev Calder'; 'Dennis Dorrah'; 'Gail Duman'; 'Jeff Petry'; 'Sam Bass'; 'Terry Schumacher'
Cc: jjacoby@bakercityherald.com; 'Deby'
Subject: Re: Sidewalk painting


Mayor,
Check Ordinance 2893, Section 6: Private Marking Unlawful. It shall be unlawful for any person to letter, mark, or paint in any manner any letters, marks, or
signs on any sidewalk, curb, street or alley, or to post on a parking strip anything designed or intended to prohibit or restrict parking in front of any sidewalk,
dwelling house, business house, or in any alley, except in compliance with the provisions of this ordinance.

Reads to me like you can't do anything to prohibit parking, not that painting dots on a sidewalk isin't allowed. What do you think?
Gail
__________________________
E-mail 4.
-------
From: Jeff Petry
To: 'Gail Duman' ; 'Steve Brocato' ; 'Andrew Bryan' ; 'Bev Calder' ; 'Sam Bass' ; 'Terry Schumacher' ; Dennis Dorrah
Cc: jjacoby@bakercityherald.com ; 'Deby'
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 9:22 AM
Subject: RE: Sidewalk painting

Councilor Duman,
In my opinion, the reading of this ordinance is plain, straightforward and obvious. I have highlighted the section along with the conjunction OR which delineates the subject matter. In any case, the City Attorney has already reviewed this matter.
You seem to defend Councilor Calder no matter the question, she has been given warnings, repeatedly shown that this is a violation with no effect. Nobody, for any reason, especially a Councilor, is allowed to deface/graffiti/advertise on our public sidewalks.
Our Police, City Attorney and Staff are just enforcing our ordinances. I would hope you understand and support this.
Sincerely,

Jeff Petry

Mayor
City of Baker City
jdpetry1@qwestoffice.net

Section 6: Private Marking Unlawful.
It shall be unlawful for any person to letter, mark, or paint in any manner any letters, marks,
or signs on any sidewalk, curb, street or alley, OR to post on a parking strip anything
designed or intended to prohibit or restrict parking in front of any sidewalk, dwelling house,
business house, or in any alley, except in compliance with the provisions of this ordinance.
___________________________
E-mail 5.
-------
From: Beverly Calder/BELLA
To: Jeff Petry ; 'Gail Duman' ; 'Steve Brocato' ; 'Andrew Bryan' ; 'Sam Bass' ; 'Terry Schumacher' ; Dennis Dorrah
Cc: jjacoby@bakercityherald.com ; 'Deby'
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 12:10 PM
Subject: Sidewalk painting

Mayor Petry;

I apologize for not responding earlier, I was out of state for a wedding and
just returned this morning.

As far as multiple 'warnings' - there were none. There was a threat of a citation
to one of my employees in the midst of Jubilee on Friday as well as the recent storm
of letters which I have only now had the opportunity to read.

The following e-mail (in blue) was the only contact I recieved for our 'dots'
which were done to create smiles and overall was very successful. It referred
to no ordinances and appears to say that chalk is allowable. I responded
to Michele that the paint used was a temporary poster paint.
I heard nothing more.

There was no additional paint for the Jubilee Sidewalk Sale - only a bit of
sidewalk chalk. The exact type of chalk that Andrew's daughter and her
friends draw on the sidewalk in front of Mad Matilda's with.

As regards Ordinance 2896, Section 6 - I don't believe we can interpret
half of an ordinance to mean somthing it was clearly never intended to.
This ordinance very specifically deals with anything done to a sidewalk that is
"designed or intended to prohibit or restrict parking".
Obviously, that was not the intent or the result.
Bev
------- Original Message -----
> From: "Michelle Owen"
> To: "'Beverly Calder'"
> Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 11:19 AM
> Subject: Sidewalk
>>
>> It was brought to my attention that there is a colorful addition to
>> the public right of way in front of your business. Cute. I trust it's
>> washable-like sidewalk chalk right?
>>
>> Michelle Owen
>> Public Works Director
>> City of Baker City
_________________________

So...this last one from Michelle Owen doesn't quite show the serious concern that the city later expressed, but suddenly, out of the blue, the police show up on Jubilee and threaten an employee with citation. This same employee was later issued a citation by the PD for parking in wrong direction while unloading a piece of furniture. Yes, sadly, the city was issuing parking tickets for people who parked in the wrong direction during Miner's Jubilee, and are apparently continuing to do so. (Am I feeling a chill wind in Baker City, or is it just my imagination?)

Here is most of the ordinance. You can pretty much skip to section 6 at the end (in bold print) after you see it is about traffic and parking regulation) .

6-1 Baker City Ordinances
Page 1 Ord. No. 2893
ORDINANCE NO. 2893
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR A COMPREHENSIVE REVISION OF CITY
REGULATIONS REGARDING TRAFFIC REGULATIONS; REPEALING ORDINANCE
2404 AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF BAKER, OREGON:
Section 1: Definitions:
The following words or phrases, except where the context clearly indicates a different
meaning, shall mean:
a) Alley: A narrow street through the middle of the block;
b) Bicycle: Every device propelled by human power upon which any person
may ride having two tandem wheels, either of which is over 14" in
diameter;
c) Bus Stand: A fixed area in the roadway adjacent to the curb to be occupied
exclusively by busses for layover in operating schedules or waiting for passengers.
d) Cycle: Any mechanical device, other than a farm tractor, designed for
the transportation of persons on the ground on wheels that: a) has a
seat or saddle for the use of a rider; b) is designed to travel with not more
than three wheels in contact with the ground.
e) Highway: Every public way, thoroughfare and place, including bridges,
viaducts, and other structures used or intended for the use of the
general public vehicles. Includes “streets” and “roads”.
f) Holidays: Where used in this ordinance or on signs erected in accordance with
this ordinance, Sundays, New Years Day, Memorial Day,
Independence Day, Labor Day, Veteran’s Day, Thanksgiving Day,
and Christmas Day.
g) Loading Zone: A space adjacent to a curb reserved for the exclusive use of
vehicles during the loading/unloading of passengers or materials and
freight. A loading zone shall not be less than 20 feet nor more than 60
feet long, and shall be designated by appropriate limit lines with the
words “Loading Zone” displayed within the limit lines.
6-1 Baker City Ordinances
Page 2 Ord. No. 2893
h) Park/Parkings: Means the standing of a vehicle, whether occupied or not,
otherwise than temporarily for the purpose of and while actually
engaged in loading/unloading property or passengers.
i) Parkway: That portion of a street not used as a roadway or a sidewalk.
j) Pedestrian: Any person afoot.
k) Person: Every natural person, firm, partnership, association or
corporation.
l) Roller Skater: Any person propelling oneself by human power or gravity on wheeled
devices that are worn on the person’s feet. Such devices specifically
include, but are not limited to, roller skates, in-line skates, and rollerskis.
m) Stand/Standing: Means the halting of a vehicle, whether occupied or not,
otherwise than temporarily for the purpose of and while actually
engaged in receiving or discharging passengers.
n) Stop/Stopping: Means any halting, even momentarily, of a vehicle whether
occupied or not, except where necessary to avoid conflict with other
traffic or compliance with the directions of a police officer or traffic
control sign or signal.
o) Taxicab Stand: A fixed area in the roadway, adjacent to the curb, set aside for
taxicabs to stand and/or wait for passengers.
p) Traffic Lane: That portion of a roadway used for the movement of a single lane
of vehicles.
q) Vehicle: Every device in, upon or by which any person or property is or
may be transported or drawn upon a public highway, except
devices moved exclusively by human power or used exclusively
upon stationary rails or tracks.
r) Vendor: Any person engaged in the selling or offering for sale, of food,
beverages, or merchandise on the public streets from a motor
vehicle. (As amended Ord. No. 3080 adopted 8-24-94)
6-1 Baker City Ordinances
Page 3 Ord. No. 2893
Section 2: Powers of the City Council.
The City Council shall designate by resolution, providing, where required by the motor
vehicle laws of Oregon, approval of the State Transportation Commission has first been
secured, the following:
a) Streets, portions of streets, sides of streets, or city owned or leased land
upon which parking, standing, or stopping shall be prohibited or prohibited during
certain hours and the angle of such parking.
b) Through streets.
c) One-way streets or alleys.
d) Truck routes.
e) Traffic direction on streets.
f) Streets where trucks, machinery, or any other large heavy vehicles
exceeding specified weights shall be prohibited. Such vehicles may, however, be
operated on such streets for the purpose of delivering or picking up materials or
merchandise, but then only by entering such streets at the intersection nearest the
destination of the vehicle, and proceeding no farther than the nearest intersection.
The City Council may also designate the streets, or portions thereof upon which parking
shall be limited to a certain amount of consecutive time.
Section 3. Powers of the City Manager.
The City Manager, for best use of the streets and the public interest, shall exercise the
following powers based on standards established by the State Department of
Transportation, and recognized traffic control standards, provided where required by the
motor vehicle laws of Oregon, approval of the State Department of Transportation has first
been secured.
a) Designate where traffic control signals shall be placed and the time of
operation of such signals.
b) Establish bus stops, bus stands, taxicab stands, and stands for other
passenger common-carrier vehicles.
6-1 Baker City Ordinances
Page 4 Ord. No. 2893
c) Designate on each side of a block, where required, not more than two
loading zones.
d) Designate and cause to be placed or maintained appropriate signs, marks
or lines for:
1) Intersections where drivers of vehicles shall not make right, left, or
U-turns and the times when such prohibitions shall apply;
2) Crosswalks at intersections where deemed necessary for pedestrian
safety;
3) Safety zones of such kind and character and at such places as
deemed necessary for pedestrian safety;
4) Play streets, or such hours when certain streets may be used as
such, on which no person shall drive a vehicle upon such street or portion
thereof, except drivers of vehicles having business or whose residences are
within such closed area, and then such driver shall exercise the greatest
care in driving upon such streets. Play street designations shall be effective
for no more than five consecutive days without Council approval.
e) Cause to be placed or marked and maintained:
1) Traffic control signs;
2) Parking spaces;
3) Traffic lanes and other symbols;
4) All other signs and markings necessary to implement traffic and
parking controls enacted by the City Council;
f) Cause to be removed or reduced in height, or trim any hedge, shrubbery or
tree extending over the street.
g) Designate certain streets as priority snow-removal streets upon which
parking may be prohibited between certain hours.
h) Emergency and experimental regulations. Make and enforce temporary,
experimental or emergency regulations, consistent with this ordinance. No such
regulation shall be effective and in force until and unless adequate signs,
signals, or other notices are erected clearly indicating such regulation. No
such regulation shall remain in effect for more than 15 days.
Section 4: Authority of Police and Fire Officers.
6-1 Baker City Ordinances
Page 5 Ord. No. 2893
a) It shall be the duty of the Police Department, through its officers, to enforce the
provisions of this ordinance.
b) In the event of a fire or other emergency or to expedite traffic or to safeguard
pedestrians, officers of the Police Department may direct traffic as conditions may require
notwithstanding the provisions of this ordinance.
c) Members of the Fire Department, when at a scene of a fire, may direct or assist
the police in directing traffic there at or in the immediate vicinity.
Section 5: Duty to Obey Traffic Signs and Signals.
a) No driver of any vehicle shall disobey the instructions of any traffic sign, signal,
marker, or barrier placed in accordance with the motor vehicle laws of Oregon or this
ordinance, including those erected by any authorized public utility and department of this
city or other authorized person, unless it is necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or
otherwise directed by a police officer.
b) No unauthorized person shall move, remove, or alter the position of, or deface or tamper with any such sign, signal, marker or barrier.

Section 6: Private Marking Unlawful. It shall be unlawful for any person to letter, mark, or paint in any manner any letters, marks, or signs on any sidewalk, curb, street or alley, or to post on a parking strip anything designed or intended to prohibit or restrict parking in front of any sidewalk, dwelling house, business house, or in any alley, except in compliance with the provisions of this ordinance.
_____________________________

The pictures below are of the sign I mentioned in front of Yorks. This is the sort of thing, private regulation of public parking spaces, that Section 6 the ordinance was designed to prohibit.