FWP Serving our elk up on an APHIS platter April 10th.

[twodot]

Buzz, I won't drag you off subject again after this. Using streets, libraries etc. is not a benefit of the Government. We all pay for those mentioned things with our tax for property, sales tax, road tax yadda yadda. None of those are Given to us Freely by the Gov. We all pay for them whether we use them or not. To provide dollars for a deal like this elk problem to a few recipients who make up not even the smallest fraction of the population is pure welfare thievery. It simply can not be justified with out opening up the wallet to everyone who's special interest needs money. Any elected thief who would support such a thing would be exposing himself as to his true nature of favoritism larceny and would seriously hinder himself from re-election. I like to think that trustworthy elected officials will avoid falling into that category.
Back to the problem, can you tell me what percentage of MT cattle contract brucellosis from elk?
I am under the impression that bison have less than a 0.005 percent chance of passing it to cattle and they have long wrongly been persecuted. Anyone have a number on the elk? I hate to see them also messed with if there is such a low chance of transmission.
You say throwing tax dollars at it to buy time is a "no brainer". I agree, that would show the use of no brains. Those elk belong to the people of the state, not just the cattle industry. Let them pay the bill until they can prove what risk, if any the elk are. Please don't waste My tax dollars killing OUR ELK in the meantime. Buzz you should know from over the years that I respect your opinion on many things, but in this case I really think you are swimming below your boat when you could be rowing.

 

[Rat Fink]

Seems those responsible for the Brucellosis issue would be those kind and generous folks that brought the disease to the landscape in the first place. Maybe they should take care of their problem they created, especially since so many of them are so proud of their "5th generation" status.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Very informed, reasonable, big picture comments Randy. Thanks.

A hearty second from me as well.

Buzz - that's a good idea regarding the insurance. I would imagine that it would work at a state level easier than at the federal level.

Twodot - Here's why I think it's a reasonable solution: Game animals are held in trust for all citizens. That means it's the problem of the people when publiclly held elk are causing problems outside of the normal conditions of the land as we've seen in the Sackman & Rathbone decisions. Brucellosis is a devastating disease not because of the disease itself, but because of government sanctions on producers who are unfortunate enough to have a transmission occur in their herds. So, in this instance, actions of the Government cause the problem in the first place, therefore any relief offered by the Gov't is wholly appropriate.

 

[BuzzH]

twodot,

I also respect your opinion, even though we arent agreeing on this issue. I can surely see your arguement, but as Ben pointed out, this is largely a problem created by government over-sight of cattle production and disease transmission.

I also believe that there are damn few choices in the "solution" to this problem that are not going to negatively impact the elk around Yellowstone and the local economies that rely on elk. Not to mention the lost hunting opporunities.

Its not practical to expect landowners to tolerate elk, hunters, etc. and then saddle them with all the costs associated with dealing with brucellosis impacts (no matter how low the risk may be).

The landowners are going to find the cheapest solution for them personally, and I can tell you that means a long trail of dead elk.

One solution requires tax payers to pony up, the other solution requires that hunters and elk pay the piper.

If you think saving a few tax dollars is more important than saving the elk herd around Yellowstone, thats fine. I just dont see the logic there myself.

Those tax dollars spent will not just solely benefit those receiving them...

 

[twodot]

Buzz/Ben, I will go ahead and try to jump out of the box here. You both saying that the Govt, thru "sanctions on producers, and oversight of cattle production and disease transmission", has created a brucelloisis problem. How about a lobby to get the Govt. requirements on the disease changed to a more correct addressing of the problem. Rather than passing out money for special intrests and leaving a trail of dead elk from Gardiner to West Yellowstone. Before there is any science done no less.
Buzz, you seem to think that I am for molesting the YS elk herd. Don't know where you get that idea, I am for prosecuting anyone who shoots even one of them this spring. I am the one who keeps saying let them fence the elk out if they are afraid of them. At their own cost.
Gotta break away and get to work. You guys have a good day!

 

[Ben Lamb]

Buzz/Ben, I will go ahead and try to jump out of the box here. You both saying that the Govt, thru "sanctions on producers, and oversight of cattle production and disease transmission", has created a brucelloisis problem. How about a lobby to get the Govt. requirements on the disease changed to a more correct addressing of the problem. Rather than passing out money for special intrests and leaving a trail of dead elk from Gardiner to West Yellowstone. Before there is any science done no less.

There has been a push to do just that, change the regulations. But there is also significant resistance to changing things from states like Texas & North Dakota (I believe). Changing the whole herd depop rule was a pretty intensive effort by Senators Tester & Baucus. All that got us was an interim rule, which needs to be replaced with changes to the UM&R & CFR.

I know sportsmen gave Senator Walsh an earful on this a few weeks ago, focusing on regulatory changes and trying to move the conversation beyond risk management versus eradication. That was received very well by both the Senator (who is on the Ag committee) and his staff.

 

[MToutdoorsman]

Seems those responsible for the Brucellosis issue would be those kind and generous folks that brought the disease to the landscape in the first place. Maybe they should take care of their problem they created, especially since so many of them are so proud of their "5th generation" status.

I completely agree with you. I said this last year and I still maintain this stance.

 

[katqanna]

I have to make a meal and eat real quick, I have been processing the public comments I received late yesterday afternoon, but wanted to throw out a couple points.

In order to even set up the DSA in Montana, a MEPA should have been done and it wasnt. In order to create this elk brucellosis program, a MEPA should have been done and it wasnt. We need the science, not assumptions like they used against the bison, to manage wildlife by. Also we need transparency and accountability from all the agencies involved to make proper decisions from, not special interest politics being ramrodded without any oversight and public accountability.

Then, you can get together and discuss real solutions to protect all the interests. Otherwise, the machinery in place for the bison now, which has been turning to include elk, evidenced by the thinly veiled threat in the FWP statement "help insulate them against more deleterious management advocacies" will turn into decades of the same APHIS anti-elk political BS that has been going on for the bison. Succumb to this now, no matter how empathetic it sounds and you will not be able to get it off precedent and the books.

Just look to the bison and tell me how well that has turned out? Which of you is going to be setting up an Elk Field Campaign, reporting on what they are doing with the elk hazings and slaughters and experiments? Oh, it appears I am already doing that, silly me.

 

[Big Fin]

Seems those responsible for the Brucellosis issue would be those kind and generous folks that brought the disease to the landscape in the first place. Maybe they should take care of their problem they created, especially since so many of them are so proud of their "5th generation" status.

I completely agree with you. I said this last year and I still maintain this stance.

I get that. The problem for me came when I was shown that for decades, YNP had its own domestic dairy herd, to provide dairy and meat products for the employees of the Park. Many speculate that is where the brucellosis originated from, as that was the time frame in which brucellosis was endemic to dairy herds in the country.

Many would make the case, and with pretty good support, that the "kind and generous folks that brought the disease to the landscape in the first place" could be the US Government, albeit, unknowingly.

If that is where the disease originated from in YNP, then we not only have the US Government involved in the accidental reintroduction of the disease, but a US Government agency (APHIS) that refuses to change its rules and operating policies, and in the process, deflects the financial responsibility on some unlucky rancher(s) who happens to have cared for his land in a way that is attractive to wild elk and these wild elk infect his cattle herd.

A conundrum of the greatest degree. Wish the answer was easy. If so, the problem would already be solved.

 

[katqanna]

I still need to eat, but I wanted to post these 4 comment points, since they deal with hunter access and the watershed "working group" aspect of what happened there. For an overview, the first meeting there were 8 sportsmen that identified themselves as sportsmen: 4 GWA members, Hayes and Lou Goosey from the Park County Rod and Gun Club, myself and one other (assumption that it was the man that came with Goosey and sat with them). At the following meetings, it was just the Goosey's and myself for sportsmen. All the rest were the ranchers.

Hayes Goosey, president-

To whom it may concern: The Park Co. Rod and Gun Club, a family oriented sportsmen’s organization with approximately 1,400 members stands in opposition to both Recommendation 1 and Recommendation and 2 for the following reasons: Recommendation 1 • From the perspective of the sportsmen and women, the local working group was at all times controlled by Livestock interests with the help of Park Co. Commissioners and Montana State University Extension Service. • Reinstatement of the May 1-May15 lethal removal dates is too close to natural elk calving time period and therefore should not be an option available to landowners. • According the recommendation 1, hazing and lethal removal is allowed on publicly owned DNRC lands in the DSA. Although livestock interests lease these lands they do not own them. Wildlife should always be welcome on public property. • Kill Permits should be removed as an option on lands where adequate public hunting is not allowed. Recommendation 2 • Large scale fencing is an option; however landowners should be burdened with 100% of the costs if they are not enrolled in a Block Management hunting program. • The definition of ‘small-scale’ is sufficient and should not be changed to include pastures where cattle are present during the risk period. • During the working group process, MSU Extension personal proved to be extremely biased in favor of livestock interests. In light of this, we at the Park Co. Rod and Gun Club are skeptical of the validity of the MSU Extension Fence Modification MontGuide as written and would suggest that it not be used in any formal way as any form of reference during any future working group meetings. Best regards, The Park Co. Rod and Gun Club Board of Directors

Lou's personal-

I am writing to voice my objections to having FWP (Montana Hunters) funding high fences to keep elk away from cattle owners' cattle. The Upper Yellowstone, Paradise Valley Study Group, meetings which I attended were dominated by cattle owners. The hunters and other few interested persons who attended felt that their input would not be even listened to. The elk problem in the Paradise Valley can be easily solved by hunter harvest. Most of the elk, during the hunting season, are either on private land or access is blocked by private land.

Landowner connecting to the Kinkie ranch (Druska was the watershed chair, the one that produced that video against the elk and the one that leases the Dome Mountain WMA for haying)

For example I own property that borders the Kinkie ranch in six mile creek. The Kinkie ranch is a big advocate of this amendment. That ranch does not allow any sort of public hunting but they are standing there with there hand out for FWP money. Why on earth give money to a ranch that will not allow the public to hunt on that property. This idea of killing elk in the third trimester is adsurd. This will open the doors to potential lawsuits from all sorts of wildlife advocates. Hunters and Anti- hunters alike.

Dear FWP Wildlife Bureau Staff: I believe the proposed "Amendment to Brucellosis Work Plan in Paradise Valley" is ill-conceived for several reasons. A little background: I have been a life-long hunter and outdoor sportsman. Before retiring ~4 yrs. ago, I worked for the US Forest Service for 38 yrs,16 of which were on the Gallatin Nat'l Forest in Livingston, Big Timber, Gardiner and Bozeman. As a Lands specialist, one of my duties was to assist in the federal acquisition of over 30,000 acres of private land in southern Paradise Valley, a major purpose of which was to help provide secure winter range for a portion of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd. Many of the ranchers in that area were also hunting outfitters who held special-use permits to use Nat'l Forest land. (I assume this may still be the case.) For years, these rancher/outfitters opposed virtually any agency proposal that they believed would interfere with 1) their cattle ranching operation, and/or 2) their ability to provide outfitted hunts for elk, deer and other species. (One rancher even claimed it was his "exclusive right" to access federal land for this purpose.) Now, with beef prices higher than they have ever been, the ranchers want to keep the elk away from their cattle, using lethal means if necessary, to prevent the spread of brucellosis. And, they want the installation of miles of wildlife exclosure fencing, also to be paid for by hunting license fees (or perhaps other sources of public revenue). This proposed boondoggle flies in the face of common sense, as well as historic and current science-based wildlife management. The chance of cattle becoming infected with brucellosis from elk is miniscule. (One scientist puts the risk at 0.00024 percent.) And, I don't believe there has ever been a single documented case of cattle being infected by elk. The Forest Service, other agencies and private landowners have spent countless thousands of dollars rolling-up and removing miles of old unnecessary boundaryline and pasture fencing in order to better allow the natural migration paths of wintering elk and other wildlife. Now, the ranchers want us to pay to reinstall fencing for them - ludicrous! It's time to put a stop to this nonsensical proposal, and for FWP (and all of us) to tell the southern Paradise Valley ranchers that we will not subsidize their cattle operations, nor the destruction of public wildlife to help alleviate their unwarranted fears regarding brucellosis transmission from elk. The ranchers can certainly fence their ownership at their own expense, if they believe it is justified. (But, I'm betting they wouldn't do it.) Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

There were a number of comments from hunters that stated they had drawn tags for that area but were denied public access at ranches. Again, as I have shown the Block Management maps for that area, there was no Block Management participation from those ranchers, nor were there overwhelming or even moderate complaints about elk through Game Damage from 2007, until this program, which operates outside of Montana law began.

 

[cowboy]

Buzz - that's a good idea regarding the insurance. I would imagine that it would work at a state level easier than at the federal

Until Wyoming agrees to getting rid of their vast feed grounds you can use all the Montana tax dollars you need and it won't curb one of the major sources.

I totally understand Randy's comments and I can emphasize and take the side of the cattle producers, I also have the same opinion/attitude that Twodot has. Tough problem that needs a long term solution, not a band-aid.

I could even buy into Buzz's insurance hypothesis - but buying time with govt. agencies may/could take decades and more money than you could guesstimate. This solution would hold a lot more merit if there was a solution in sight and not just wishful thinking of buying time.

The problem will not stop at any certain point. The best that we can hope for is a gradual lessening of incidents.

The only solution that I see for the long term benefit of elk-buffalo and the cattle industry is do the best we can in eliminating congregations of elk - feed grounds, private ground sanctuaries and mixing elk and cattle at calving time.

We can put up all the fence cattle producers ask for and all we're going to do is move the infected elk to the next area they can find grass. We can insure all the ranchers that have an incident and all we're going to do is have more ranchers involved as the elk move on to available grazing. In the mean time we have done nothing in lessening the amount of disease floating around.

We need to lessen the source where one elk transmits to another.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Until Wyoming agrees to getting rid of their vast feed grounds you can use all the Montana tax dollars you need and it won't curb one of the major sources.

I totally understand Randy's comments and I can emphasize and take the side of the cattle producers, I also have the same opinion/attitude that Twodot has. Tough problem that needs a long term solution, not a band-aid.

I could even buy into Buzz's insurance hypothesis - but buying time with govt. agencies may/could take decades and more money than you could guesstimate. This solution would hold a lot more merit if there was a solution in sight and not just wishful thinking of buying time.

The problem will not stop at any certain point. The best that we can hope for is a gradual lessening of incidents.

The only solution that I see for the long term benefit of elk-buffalo and the cattle industry is do the best we can in eliminating congregations of elk - feed grounds, private ground sanctuaries and mixing elk and cattle at calving time.

We can put up all the fence cattle producers ask for and all we're going to do is move the infected elk to the next area they can find grass. We can insure all the ranchers that have an incident and all we're going to do is have more ranchers involved as the elk move on to available grazing. In the mean time we have done nothing in lessening the amount of disease floating around.

We need to lessen the source where one elk transmits to another.

I can agree with a lot of that. The feedground issue is an important one, and one that Wyoming has to deal with as a state. You also have the National Elk Refuge in Jackson.

As has been said, a vaccine that will work 100% for cattle is still years off. Wyoming won't get rid of the feedgrounds any time soon. APHIS rules are woefully outdated and put the onus on people caught in the middle (livestock producers & sportsmen). Other states are using the situation to punish Montana's economy & livestock producers by not following accepted standards. This is a classic example of Gov't run amok and it needs to be addressed.

All of that takes time. Until it all comes together, then the Gov't should be held liable for it's mistake. That's why I would support the program.

Kat.

As to MEPA & the DSA: the original order came from the state vet and by law wasn't required to go through MEPA as I understand it. When they established the DSA. It went from an order from the state vet to a rule, they performed a checklist EA, which didn't require public comment. Senator Debby Barrett (R-Dillon) raised these same points at Environmental Quality Council hearings during the actions. Subsequent drafts & amendments have all gone through the public process and had public input. I'm not sure chasing that rabbit will yield any results. I would imagine most groups who would sue on this would agree since there hasn't been any lawsuits filed, or if they have, any that have been successful.

 

[cowboy]

Wyoming won't get rid of the feedgrounds any time soon. Other states are using the situation to punish Montana's economy & livestock producers by not following accepted standards. This is a classic example of Gov't run amok and it needs to be addressed.

Then we as Montana sportsmen, elk/buffalo hunters, and cattle producers have an obligation to put our money to where it has the most benefit.

This topic has the ingredients for a Kat. cartoon and should be mailed to every Wyo. resident for reaction. I'd volunteer to lick all the envelopes.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I'd volunteer to lick all the envelopes.

Gross. They make a thing for that, you know.

 

[katqanna]

Kat.

As to MEPA & the DSA: the original order came from the state vet and by law wasn't required to go through MEPA as I understand it. When they established the DSA. It went from an order from the state vet to a rule, they performed a checklist EA, which didn't require public comment. Senator Debby Barrett (R-Dillon) raised these same points at Environmental Quality Council hearings during the actions. Subsequent drafts & amendments have all gone through the public process and had public input. I'm not sure chasing that rabbit will yield any results. I would imagine most groups who would sue on this would agree since there hasn't been any lawsuits filed, or if they have, any that have been successful.

A legislative inquiry into the DOL DSA found that a MEPA should have been done. "The DOL is not a state agency that is exempted from MEPA. The DOL Order is an action that is defined under MEPA and the DOL's administrative rules and the DOL Order likely is not exempted or excluded from MEPA review...Based on this unfortunately lengthy but necessary legal analysis, the DOL's Order probably should have been subjected to the MEPA review process" Feb. 25, 2010 Montana Legislative Services Division, Requested Staff Legal Opinion on the Application of MEPA to the Department of Livestock's Designated Surveillance Area for Brucellosis Official Order

Okay, here are the breakdowns from the public comments submitted.
67 individuals: 54 against, 7 for, and 5 that had some concerns about one or both proposals but not necessary worded as for or against, or only voted for one proposal, not mentioning the other.

8 sporting groups against Laurel Rod and Gun Club (400), Montana Wildlife Federation (5000), Anaconda Sportsman's Club, Park County Rod and Gun Club (1,400), Helena Hunters and Anglers Association, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Skyline Sportsmen's Association and Montana Sportsmen Alliance

6 organizations: Park Conservation District, Upper Yellowstone Watershed Basin a division of Park Conservation District, Park County Commissioners and MT DOL for, Alliance for the Wild Rockies and Montana Ecosystems Defense Council against

3 Statewide Working Group members: 2 against, 1 for (Park County resident and rancher)

15 Park County individuals: 7 for, 8 against

1 individual was an out of state hunter that commented against the proposals.

 

[Ben Lamb]

A legislative inquiry into the DOL DSA found that a MEPA should have been done. "The DOL is not a state agency that is exempted from MEPA. The DOL Order is an action that is defined under MEPA and the DOL's administrative rules and the DOL Order likely is not exempted or excluded from MEPA review...Based on this unfortunately lengthy but necessary legal analysis, the DOL's Order probably should have been subjected to the MEPA review process" Feb. 25, 2010 Montana Legislative Services Division, Requested Staff Legal Opinion on the Application of MEPA to the Department of Livestock's Designated Surveillance Area for Brucellosis Official Order

Thanks for refreshing my memory Kat. Much appreciated.

It sounds like dueling lawyers. The DOL lawyer was sure that they were legal, Leg services disagreed. The DOL lawyers, btw, haven't lost a case yet on this yet.

 

[twodot]

I'm glad to see that there are indeed others that think in a similar fashion as myself on this. I hope the sportsmen turn out in droves and are ready to put some political types feet to the fire over this. Maybe some measures will be taken that will have positive results for the game.

 

[katqanna]

Ben, You are welcome. I dont think that at the time the DSA was set up, people knew what was really happening and what the ramifications for elk in Montana would be, nor that Montana had signed on to a Brucellosis Management Plan with APHIS that would compromise our FWP.

Cowboy, I have already been requested to have the No Science Monkeys visit the WY governors office, especially because of those feed grounds. In fact a cartoon brain trust has been developed for strategizing important issues.

twodot, I have already inquired into the fact that Montana poaching laws have a 3 year statute of limitations on it. Which means those that killed elk on those ranches in spring of 2013 are just as capable of being prosecuted as the ones this season. As Quentin Kujala likes to frequently state - this elk program is NOT Game Damage. Game Damage is managed by Montana laws and these actions are not, nor are they within the law for the FWP Commissioners to significantly deviate from since elk management is based on habitat acreage, not brucellosis management, requiring a MEPA to have taken place.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ben, You are welcome. I dont think that at the time the DSA was set up, people knew what was really happening and what the ramifications for elk in Montana would be, nor that Montana had signed on to a Brucellosis Management Plan with APHIS that would compromise our FWP.

Cowboy, I have already been requested to have the No Science Monkeys visit the WY governors office, especially because of those feed grounds. In fact a cartoon brain trust has been developed for strategizing important issues.

twodot, I have already inquired into the fact that Montana poaching laws have a 3 year statute of limitations on it. Which means those that killed elk on those ranches in spring of 2013 are just as capable of being prosecuted as the ones this season. As Quentin Kujala likes to frequently state - this elk program is NOT Game Damage. Game Damage is managed by Montana laws and these actions are not, nor are they within the law for the FWP Commissioners to significantly deviate from since elk management is based on habitat acreage, not brucellosis management, requiring a MEPA to have taken place.

Actually Kat, many of us worked extremely hard to limit the program when it came to elk. Others were quick to throw elk over the rail in defense of bison.

 

[katqanna]

Actually Kat, many of us worked extremely hard to limit the program when it came to elk. Others were quick to throw elk over the rail in defense of bison.

Ben, yes, I have seen documents, public comments and articles, mostly by conservation hunters, that objected to the actions at the time. I was more referencing the APHIS eradication agenda goals, through the DSA, as not being so widely understood, because I also saw hunters comments that it would be good to eradicate brucellosis from wildlife to protect livestock, not necessarily understanding what exactly that would entail.

And I currently hear from some bison advocates that elk also have brucellosis and they get to roam freely, and now that it is known that it is the elk genotype that has transmitted in some cases, not all, but some are quick to throw the elk under the bus in an effort to get the bison out of the crosshairs. I keep telling both sides that the bison and the elk are in the same brucellosis boat (another one of those editorial cartoon shots I always see in my head), that you cant pick one or the other, you have to fight for both or wildlife will be screwed by a well funded APHIS agenda that wants both in their crosshairs.

Actually, I just got in one of my cds of a partial APHIS FOIA the other day. They seem to think I will be daunted by a 600 pg long pdf document that is not chronologically set up. I have done 1000-3000 piece jigsaw puzzles from the backside just because I wanted a challenge. ANd I have the software to separate the pdf back into the separate pieces. At any rate, one of the documents was an APHIS funded study they did on bears here, to see if there was any Brucella abortus. Guess what? There was. So I commented to a friend the other day, in my frustration over the apathy of the conservation groups, that perhaps I should let the conservationists know that some of their precious bears also have Brucella abortus, which makes them an APHIS target in their eradication of brucellosis from ALL wildlife, in addition to wolves. I clearly have no sacred cows.