Montana Elk hazing like European Ghettos

[katqanna]

I just got home from the commission meeting. Nick Gevock for Montana Wildlife Federation said they could not support it in this form. Rod Bullis spoke for Helena Hunters and Anglers, vehemently opposed. Harold Johns and Leroy Mehring also opposed. When I talked to Harold the other day about Eric Liska of DOL making the lethal proposal at the work group meeting, which got changed to hazing with lethal qualifications if the non-lethal didnt work, called Helena to get the copy of the minutes from the July meeting. None could be produced, so Harold brought that up as part of his public comments. I spoke on alot of the science and fiscal. Oh, GWA commented against it from Region 3.

I took an 8.5x11 photo of an edited cow elk ( I edited off the surveillance collar ) and challenged all the vets in the room, the wildlife biologists and the commission to hazard a guess if that elk was the seropositive one or the brucellosis antibody free one? There is no way they could guess. BTW, the only way to get a 100% antibody free one, unless I was on sight when they were testing, was to get one from the zoo.

Originally, Commissioner Vermillion motioned to pass it and take it to the public, then amended his motion to strike the new DSA elk hazing section of the proposed work plan. That was passed unanimously. All the commissioners were awesome today with well reasoned discussions, upholding what FWP is supposed to be about.

Fishing ran longer than scheduled. Then they changed the order of the wildlife agenda, moving the elk brucellosis issue to the front of the wildlife section, broke for their lunch and their field trip, I guess finishing up when they got back. I left for home after the brucellosis vote.

They got a lot of calls and emails about this, so thank you to any of you that participated. This would have been heinous.

edit:There was a guy from RMEF sitting next to me. I asked if he was here to comment against the elk hazing. He didnt know about it, said he was there for the license auction.

 

[RobG]

Where is RMEF on this? Why does nobody hold Vermillion's feet to the fire?
This should not even be discussed at an FWP meeting.
The livestock association has enough money and lobbyists looking out for them, with out FWP being a de facto livestock advocate.
Next year they will be sniveling again about how license increases are needed too.
The idea of chasing elk with helicopters, on top of a six-month long hunting season makes it pretty hard to believe that FWP is interested, or in any way shape or form in conservation of elk.

Vermillion moved to have the hazing plan excluded. His motion passed. That is to say, the hazing plan was rejected.

edit... Kat and I were typing at the same time.

 

[MTGomer]

edit:There was a guy from RMEF sitting next to me. I asked if he was here to comment against the elk hazing. He didnt know about it, said he was there for the license auction.

sad, and a perfect three sentence summary of why they don't get my money.
Calendar sales first, hooty twooty banquets second, land purchasing third, policy advocacy to help elk 4th.
Probably not a popular statement on this page.

 

[MT_elk]

Glad to see this was defeated.
http://www.bozemandailychronicle.co...cle_cf1ee1ad-48a6-5065-8461-c6ff6be0ba4b.html

 

[Ben Lamb]

edit:There was a guy from RMEF sitting next to me. I asked if he was here to comment against the elk hazing. He didnt know about it, said he was there for the license auction.
sad, and a perfect three sentence summary of why they don't get my money.
Calendar sales first, hooty twooty banquets second, land purchasing third, policy advocacy to help elk 4th.
Probably not a popular statement on this page.

Joe Cohenour of East Helena represented RMEF in the working group and has publicly expressed his disapproval of the hazing proposal in the press., IIRC.

Now is a good time to write the Commission and thank them for their action. Folks are quick to write in anger, but don't thank people when they do good work.

 

[shootbrownelk]

I agree. End public grazing.

 

[Big Fin]

edit:There was a guy from RMEF sitting next to me. I asked if he was here to comment against the elk hazing. He didnt know about it, said he was there for the license auction.

That would be incorrect, Kat. There was no staff there from RMEF for presentation of an official RMEF position on this topic or on a Governor's license topic. You might have spoke to a volunteer who could have been there, but that person was not officially representing RMEF.

As the person who Chairs the Board Committee on Governmental Affairs and Conservation Issues, I can assure you that the Department and the Commission know of RMEF's position. The official comment period expires September 12th. Now that the Commission took the action they did, not even sure if that date is relevant.

sad, and a perfect three sentence summary of why they don't get my money.
Calendar sales first, hooty twooty banquets second, land purchasing third, policy advocacy to help elk 4th.
Probably not a popular statement on this page.

A perfect three sentence summary of the consequences of speaking when one is uninformed/misinformed about the facts of the matter at hand.

Maybe you are sending your money to a group who does more for elk, more for access, and swings a bigger stick on these issues, than RMEF. If you are supporting a group that is doing that, let me know, as I want to send them some of my money. An address of where I send my check would be greatly appreciated.

If anyone wants information about where RMEF stands on any of these issues, you can surely send me a PM or an email. Might be a way to prevent the consequences of speaking when being misinformed/uninformed.

 

[katqanna]

Randy, I was not mentioning that as a criticism, just that the guy with the logo or tag on his shirt, when I asked if he was there to speak on this issue said he was not, didn't know about it. I mentioned Joe and the work group, which he knew Joe was on. I mentioned what Joe related about DOL's proposal and that Joe was going to come to the commission meeting, but didn't know the next one was in 2 days and would not be able to make it being out of state, this guy brought up that he was there for the license auction. Whoever this guy was, he said "our" in relation to RMEF when I mentioned Joe, that Joe was in "our" Helena office, if I remember correctly he said he was from MIssoula. Sorry I can't remember his name on the tag, but he very much gave the impression that he was with RMEF. But I could be mistaken.



I got an email newsletter from BFC today. They have a phrase on each one, “Manage Wild Bison Like Wild Elk in Montana."

I thought that ironic in light of what just transpired, how things could have changed for the elk. Perhaps they should simply state, "Manage Wild Bison Like Wildlife." DOL and APHIS are not going to give up on APHIS' agenda of eradicating brucellosis in all wildlife. That was one of the repeated thoughts expressed, that this proposal was very much like livestock management, not wildlife management.

There was an academic paper I have had for years that I took with me, a bit older for some of the current science - 2006. For example it is focused more on bison because they were not as aware of the genetics and the elk transfer. Applying an ecosystem approach to brucellosis control: can an old conflict between wildlife and agriculture be successfully managed?

It spoke about the unconnected state efforts are insufficient, bringing up the feedgrounds issues. The paper concluded, "Wildlife disease management that makes crisis aversion on local scales its centerpiece, rather than focusing on proactive interventions to manage diseases on ecosystem scales, is still the norm, rather than the exception."

The feedgrounds were brought up today. Dr. Marty Zaluski mentioned that it was not just brucellosis coming from Wyoming south of Red Lodge, Hunt District 502, but the Wyoming elk down that way, have CWD (the map I put up in June). This would greatly expand the DSA. This is where they did the capture program this winter. They tested some of the Wyoming elk that were wintering in that location, some were seropositive, were collared, some of those collars did not go back into Wyoming. I think it was 2, he said, that went north. The commission suggested FWP and DOL bring some details to them about the area, the terrain, etc., to see about a management action specific to that situation. Zalusky was suggesting a large scale kill/hunt to deter the herds from blending.

Some of the discussion with biologists, which I keep up to date on with the news reports, involved Canada's brucellosis and CWD, we are being caught in the middle of game ranches and feedgrounds.

 

[MTGomer]

That would be incorrect, Kat. There was no staff there from RMEF for presentation of an official RMEF position on this topic or on a Governor's license topic. You might have spoke to a volunteer who could have been there, but that person was not officially representing RMEF.

As the person who Chairs the Board Committee on Governmental Affairs and Conservation Issues, I can assure you that the Department and the Commission know of RMEF's position. The official comment period expires September 12th. Now that the Commission took the action they did, not even sure if that date is relevant.



A perfect three sentence summary of the consequences of speaking when one is uninformed/misinformed about the facts of the matter at hand.

Maybe you are sending your money to a group who does more for elk, more for access, and swings a bigger stick on these issues, than RMEF. If you are supporting a group that is doing that, let me know, as I want to send them some of my money. An address of where I send my check would be greatly appreciated.

If anyone wants information about where RMEF stands on any of these issues, you can surely send me a PM or an email. Might be a way to prevent the consequences of speaking when being misinformed/uninformed.

For the size of stick RMEF is capable of swinging with their membership numbers and revenue, they have a track record of being pretty quiet, atleast from an outside perspective. Obviously I wouldn't be privy to behind the scenes work and things like that.
It just seems that there's been some major negative events in regards to elk and they barely issue a statement or if they do its a day late and a dollar short.
Example, The destruction of the Gardiner herd didn't happen overnight. Did RMEF do any independent herd counts when FWP failed to give real numbers, from using airplanes on bad weather days instead of helicopters on good whether days? Hunters slaughtered migrating cows, while 'endangered' wolves ate them all winter and nobody did anything.
That's old news though.
This shoulder season nonsense is about to start in 3 days. Very little out of them on that. I'm sure the have a position, but what are they DOING?
The list is fairly expansive of stupidity perpetrated by FWP policy and I am in no way suggesting that RMEF is responsible one bit for anything the commission decides. But I believe RMEF has the ability to greatly influence decisions in a positive manner, and from an outsider's perspective seem to miss the ball a lot. Obviously they do a lot of good. Just showing that as many people that are on the membership rolls, care about elk, is a great thing.
I just don't see the same direct action on the ground and in the policy aspect as you do from other species specific groups.
You and other board members might feel passionately and be very strongly opinionated about something but setting that as a policy and aggressively pursuing it is a different thing.
I understand that you have to toe the line and pick and choose your battles, and can't swing for the fences on every little thing either. Maybe I'm just being too critical.
I just know I've thought 'where the hell is the elk foundation?' A lot of times, but don't often think 'where is TU or the sheep foundation?'

 

[Gerald Martin]

MTGomer, keep in mind that RMEF's mission is habitat preservation, not necessarily weighing in on every elk management decision that every wildlife department in every state makes. If hunters want to positively affect elk management decisions in their state they must make their voices heard. Just because the RMEF doesn't weigh in on everything we are passionate about doesn't make them a worthless organization.

 

[MTGomer]

MTGomer, keep in mind that RMEF's mission is habitat preservation, not necessarily weighing in on every elk management decision that every wildlife department in every state makes. If hunters want to positively affect elk management decisions in their state they must make their voices heard. Just because the RMEF doesn't weigh in on everything we are passionate about doesn't make them a worthless organization.

I think they're far from worthless. Just that piece they picked up in the Snowies is pretty worthy.
Maybe as you say, some of the things I wish they would do aren't part of their agenda. That's fine I suppose. If that's where they've strategized their priorities should be, then I'm sure they know best that's best for them.
Maybe my complaint is more that there is a gap, a need not being met. Maybe it's not RMEFs role to fill that gap. Maybe I should quit bitching and start my own organization! Lol
I do comment and encourage others to comment whenever FWP takes comments, which is probably an exercise in futility.

 

[SteveE]

Glad to see this was defeated.
http://www.bozemandailychronicle.co...cle_cf1ee1ad-48a6-5065-8461-c6ff6be0ba4b.html

+1 win

 

[hank4elk]

Sounds like the only thing cattle ranchers don't inject or feed their cattle is one for a sickness that effects a lot of their animals.
And effects OUR wildlife.

 

[Backstrap]

Glad to hear that this is subsiding for the moment!

 

[Ben Lamb]

I think they're far from worthless. Just that piece they picked up in the Snowies is pretty worthy.
Maybe as you say, some of the things I wish they would do aren't part of their agenda. That's fine I suppose. If that's where they've strategized their priorities should be, then I'm sure they know best that's best for them.
Maybe my complaint is more that there is a gap, a need not being met. Maybe it's not RMEFs role to fill that gap. Maybe I should quit bitching and start my own organization! Lol
I do comment and encourage others to comment whenever FWP takes comments, which is probably an exercise in futility.

No group is perfect. They all take stances that someone will find objectionable, not act on an issue for a variety of reasons, etc. RMEF does incredible things for wildlife and public lands, as well as ensure family farms and ranches can continue the tradition of wildlife stewardship.

That being said, there is one organization that is always at the commission meetings, working with the agency & commission; fighting to keep public lands in public hands; working to pass legislation in Congress that benefits wildlife and hunters & anglers; and at the legislature fielding 2 lobbyists who do a damned good job: http://montanawildlife.org/

 

[shoots-straight]

For those who criticize the RMEF, please keep it in perspective. (I too have been critical at times). They do a tremendous amount of work for elk and habitat which benefits lots of other wildlife.

That said. They did not come out against the Shoulder seasons. I believe (Randy can verify one way or the other) they actually supported this because it gives hunters "OPPORTUNITY".

I believe that the species management should be based on real science and come before social science.

 

[katqanna]

Glad to hear that this is subsiding for the moment!

It is not going to subside. This was a pretty ballsy and aggressive move by DOL to move this ball in their stated direction.

I go to the IBMP meetings, most sportsmen don't attend, so they don't see how blatant APHIS and DOL are towards gaining legislative control over our elk like they have with our bison (81-2-120). They have pushed through the IBMP process to do just this.

Couple years ago, I dug and compiled all the APHIS positions, objective and mission positions so that people could see where this was headed to warn sportsmen -

Eradication depends on finding the last remaining brucellosis-reactor animal, the last remaining brucellosis-affected herd, and eliminating the disease from wildlife reservoirs. All potential risks for exposure and transmission of brucellosis from infected wildlife populations must be mitigated and eliminated as well.

DOL has publicly supported and endorsed the APHIS position, as well as the Federal Brucellosis Eradication Uniform Methods and Rules, which is currently going through an upgrade.

USAHA (United States Animal Health Association) also supports the APHIS position - "The purpose of the Brucellosis Committee is to provide the support and direction needed to achieve the complete eradication of the disease in the United States. After the disease is eliminated from the United States, the focus will be on protecting the United States from introduction of the disease by maintaining strict health standards, through trade negotiations and other safeguarding and biosecurity efforts for the protection of animal and public health.

The Brucellosis Committee serves as a forum and clearing house for ideas and proposals that have been submitted to it by state and federal members, industry representatives, researchers, wildlife interests and others. The Brucellosis Committee maintains two subcommittees, education and scientific, that serve to facilitate the goals of the committee."

NASDA (National Association of State Departments of Agriculture) "The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture is comprised of the departments of agriculture in all fifty states and the territories of American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The commissioner, secretary, or director of each department is the designated representative of the state to participate in NASDA activities." Policy Statements 2013 - "NASDA urges the Administration to direct Agriculture and Interior to collaborate with state agencies to address Brucellosis in wildlife in the GYA and to provide sufficient resources to control and eliminate Brucellosis from wildlife of the GYA." - pg. 25

AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association) - "The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), established in 1863, is a not-for-profit association representing more than 84,000 veterinarians working in private and corporate practice, government, industry, academia, and uniformed services. Structured to work for its members, the AVMA acts as a collective voice for its membership and for the profession." - "Greater Yellowstone Brucellosis: The AVMA urges state and federal agencies to continue working together to implement plans to control and eliminate brucellosis from bison and elk populations in the Greater Yellowstone Area." MTVMA (Montana Veterinary Medical Association) subscribes to the national view.

MCA (Montana Cattlemen's Association) - Policy Book, "BE IT RESOLVED, Montana Cattlemen's Association requests USDA, Parks Service, and APHIS work with the Montana Department of Livestock and Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks to create a program with the ultimate goal to eradicate brucellosis in the Greater Yellowstone Area wildlife as quickly as possible."

MSGA (Montana Stockgrowers Association) - "In the area of cattle health, MSGA worked with Wyoming and Idaho to modify NCBA’s policy on brucellosis. The new policy implies that NCBA will pursue priorities and strategies regarding both the modification of the National Brucellosis Eradication Program and the eradication of brucellosis from the Greater Yellowstone Area."

Montana's State Veterinarian for the Department of Livestock, Dr. Marty Zaluski, who was at the commission meeting yesterday supporting this proposal, is also a member of the MTVMA (Montana Veterinary Medical Association), which is a member of the AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association) supporting brucellosis eradication. Zaluski is also a member of USAHA, was the chairman of their Subcommittee on Greater Yellowstone Area of the Committee on Brucellosis, brucellosis eradication. Zaluski is now the chairman of the whole USAHA Brucellosis Committee. Dr. Zaluski is also a member of the NIAA - brucellosis eradication.

I would love to look at the big picture and see something other than what I have been seeing, but so far, the trickle down effect of APHIS' brucellosis eradication in wildlife agenda, makes it difficult to be relieved by yesterday's decision. They will probably push very hard this legislative session since they made this bold move. All the more reason we need Bullock as governor, because I don't think Gianforte would veto anything along this line, he could hand them the keys to FWP and change the commission as well. Then where would we be?

 

[Big Fin]

For those who criticize the RMEF, please keep it in perspective. (I too have been critical at times). They do a tremendous amount of work for elk and habitat which benefits lots of other wildlife.

That said. They did not come out against the Shoulder seasons. I believe (Randy can verify one way or the other) they actually supported this because it gives hunters "OPPORTUNITY".

Thanks, Robert.

RMEF did oppose the Shoulder Season proposal. See comments below.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Good letter.

Thanks for posting.

 

[BigHornRam]

Here's a few more things to think about:

a.) The regulation on B. Abortus is from the 1930's, when pasturization of milk was still fairly new and we had cases of undulate fever. Reforming those regulations to account for modern dairy practices and the reality of Brucellosis in Wildlife would be a big stepin reducing the conflict. There is little in regards to actual human health concern from livestock or wildlife.

b.) The biggest issue isn't the disease. It's the way we handle it from the livstock producer's view. It took years to get from whole herd depopulaton to select animal depop. That's a massive hit on a producer who has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to develop certain traits in his cows, and it means that the producer has to start from scratch. It's a business issue for producers, not a wildlife issue. When we punish livestock producers for elk being elk, we set up a conflict without providing a way for people to stay on the land. I'd much rather have cows in the Paradise valley than condos.

c.) Stop vilifying the ranching industry and find a way to work with them. This is a business issue for them and it means the difference between selling the ranch and staying out in the country. It's their bottom line that is being the most impacted by this. Comparing elk hazing to herding Jews into Ghettos shuts down honest debate between interests and leads to more bad legislation related to test & slaughter, etc.

Way too much common sense in that line of thinking, Ben.