Members from the Grant County Budget Committee said they misspoke when they said the Grant County Farm Bureau would help the county establish a taxing district to fund a predator control program.

In a May 19 budget session, committee member Amy Kreger and County Commissioner Jim Hamsher said the Farm Bureau would do the work to establish a taxing district if the county would make a commitment to the fund predator control program for two years, as confirmed by the Eagle’s recording.

The committee decided to budget $35,000 for the program.

In a June 15 email, Shaun Robertson, Grant County Farm Bureau president, said the Farm Bureau had not contacted the county with a proposal to create a taxing district to support the program. He said that would require a vote from the Farm Bureau board of directors.

Hamsher said it was his mistake to say the Farm Bureau would support the taxing district.

Kreger told the Eagle that she discussed taxing with Hamsher and County Commissioner Sam Palmer in earlier budget meetings. Still, she said she thought the information had come from USDA Wildlife Services District Supervisor Shane Koyle, not the Farm Bureau.

She said her comments might have come out wrong.

“Maybe I said it wrong because I was over the meetings at that point in time.” she said. “If I misspoke, I misspoke. I am going to own it.”

Hamsher said it was a “big misunderstanding.”

He said he confused Robertson’s testimony on April 29 with his April 14 Farm Bureau testimony — both of which Robertson submitted electronically.

The Eagle obtained both emails. However, neither Kreger nor committee members Rob Stewart and Bob Quinton appear to be on either of the email threads.

Robertson emailed the Farm Bureau testimony on April 14 and sent his other testimony from a personal email address on April 29.

Farm Bureau testimony

In Roberton’s Farm Bureau testimony, he states:

“Please accept this input as testimony on behalf of the Grant County Farm Bureau, who is supportive of continued funding for the County Predator Control Program.”

Robertson said the program had been beneficial to landowners and talked about the growing problem of invasive species management.

However, nowhere in the statement does he bring up the prospect of the county establishing a taxing district. Instead, he said rural farm and ranch landowners take little in county services despite making up a lion’s share of the tax revenue.

Personal testimony

In his April 29 email to the court members, Robertson starts off with the following:

“This is personal testimony regarding the County’s continued support of the predator control program and not that of the Grant County Farm Bureau or anyone else who I represent.”

He writes that the county can form a predator or animal control district with taxing authority. While people do not like the idea of more taxes, they might be able to organize something if they are without services, he said.

Robertson informally asked the court to consider funding the control program for an additional two years with the understanding that the funding would “sunset” after two years.

After that, a portion would go to establishing an animal damage control district. Then, another piece would secure a commitment for cost-share funding from other sources to operate the program. Finally, a combination of tax revenues and cost-share would replace the county’s general fund contribution for animal control.

He offered to prepare a “brief request” for the court to take to the Budget Committee and court for a hearing.

Grant County Farm Bureau’s position on predator control

Robertson said the state owns wildlife in Oregon, although the federal government retains partial ownership of certain species protected under federal law.

Private landowners, he said, possess rights reserved under the Oregon and U.S. constitutions to protect their personal property from injury caused by wildlife. He said private lands are some of the most valuable habitats remaining in nature. Inherently, Robertson said, there will be issues created by the state’s desire to house their wildlife in those privately owned habitats.

“The GCFB asserts that landowners should first have maximum flexibility and independence to prevent injury to their property from the state’s wildlife and, to the extent that the state limits or impairs landowner’s rights to achieve a purported benefit to the public, the state should compensate landowners for damage their wildlife causes to private property,” Robertson said.

Robertson said, although it’s only one of many tools used by local government and landowners, predator control is a significant measure for helping offset the considerable expense landowners incur housing the state’s wildlife and for lowering operational losses that reduce on-farm economic viability.

‘No harm, no foul’

Robertson said the county’s budget and fiscal policies have many “moving parts,” and some of these funding issues have been ongoing for many years.

Additionally, he said, private business owners and local government representatives wear “many hats,” and it’s challenging to keep them all straight.

He said the Farm Bureau and he, as a private citizen, had spoken informally to the court in the past about a taxing district for nuisance wildlife control as well as for other “important local government service.”

“It would be very easy and completely understandable to confuse who was representing what particular issue in the heat of the moment,” Robertson said. “Really, though — no harm, no foul.”