PERC and Elk Occupancy Agreements

[brocksw]

I discussed this briefly with Buzz over PM as i saw it being somewhat similsr to WY elk feed lots. But I'm still curious about some broader opinions/thoughts on the elk occupancy agreements. Coming from PERC makes me uneasy as they're pretty much the antithesis to the NA Model of wildlife conservation. But might this be one and possibly only good idea they've come up with?

A New Tool to Help Livestock and Wildlife Coexist | PERC

People and wildlife need to successfully coexist in Montana, and we hope area residents can continue to work together to solve the complex problems facing our region.

www.perc.org

 

[Big Fin]

I'm in support of it. This is about brucellosis.

 

[Jbaldwin40]

Awesome. Reduce brucellosis should mean more calves and healthier herds.

 

[BigHornRam]

Solution to conflict paid for with private funds. Sounds like a great program to me.

 

[Irrelevant]

I'm real lukewarm (at best) on this.

Wildlife are a condition of the land, not a spurge to be mitigated.

The idea that land owners somehow are not responsible for planning around that condition and that wildlife is the "new thing" that is all of a sudden forcing ranchers out of a livihood is a joke. If cattle ranchers aren't making enough profit it has a helluva lot more to do with the practices of buying, selling, and marketing beef than it does how many elk you have. I'd prefer they take their gripe up with Tyson.

 

[Big Fin]

I'm real lukewarm (at best) on this.

Wildlife are a condition of the land, not a spurge to be mitigated.

The idea that land owners somehow are not responsible for planning around that condition and that wildlife is the "new thing" that is all of a sudden forcing ranchers out of a livihood is a joke. If cattle ranchers aren't making enough profit it has a helluva lot more to do with the practices of buying, selling, and marketing beef than it does how many elk you have. I'd prefer they take their gripe up with Tyson.

What if you are a landowner with a much higher than average elk tolerance and your habitat invites more and more elk every year. Yet one day you wake up and you have a positive brucellosis test. And then another one. And then you get your ranch placed under quarantine by APHIS. When APHIS rules are arbitrary and illogical, the end result of your high elk tolerance is that you cannot sell an animal for 12 months, assuming you have no additional positives, in which case your period of no sales continues even further. Though females are the worry, you can't even sell bulls or steers.

Imagine trying to feed 350-400 animals, provide their vet care, their supplement, and have enough savings for your own subsistence, and do that for a year. All because illogical Federal rules punish you for having a high elk tolerance and good land stewardship that attracted more elk wintering on your place than last year, which was more than the last year, which was more than the last year.

I suspect any of us would be scratching our head with a look of "No good deed goes unpunished." And I suspect very few businesses would find a way to survive zero revenue for a year, yet all the normal operating costs.

So yeah, wildlife is a condition of the land. Some folks not only accept that, but embrace it. What isn't a condition of the land is the punitive rules that punish those who are providing quality habitat for winter wildlife, as happens under the APHIS rules.

Big kudos to PERC, GYC, and whoever they found as funders for this elk occupancy agreement. This might be one hope for higher elk tolerance in areas with high brucellosis prevalence. We know APHIS and the Senators from the feedlot states of the midwest don't want to change these stupid rules, so we can't count on them to change the consequences placed on good land stewards who attract wintering elk.

Hunters who want more elk would benefit from studying up on the APHIS rules that give every incentive to have no elk on your land and every incentive to have lower elk objectives. Those rules and the perverse incentives created are not there for any scientific or biological reason, rather all political reasons and the "institutional inertia" of government regulation. As elk become more and more the vector for brucellosis infections, those wanting more elk will be best served by working with landowners who want elk to have a place on the land but don't want to bear the entire financial calamity that could come from those elk spreading brucellosis to your herd.

I've proposed that hunters in Montana should press the state to start an insurance fund for ranchers placed under quarantine due to brucellosis brought by elk. If APHIS refuses to change their rules and we want higher elk tolerance, we should find ways to help those who bear all the financial risk related to the presence of brucellosis infected elk.

 

[brocksw]

What if you are a landowner with a much higher than average elk tolerance and your habitat invites more and more elk every year. Yet one day you wake up and you have a positive brucellosis test. And then another one. And then you get your ranch placed under quarantine by APHIS. When APHIS rules are arbitrary and illogical, the end result of your high elk tolerance is that you cannot sell an animal for 12 months, assuming you have no additional positives, in which case your period of no sales continues even further. Though females are the worry, you can't even sell bulls or steers.

Imagine trying to feed 350-400 animals, provide their vet care, their supplement, and have enough savings for your own subsistence, and do that for a year. All because illogical Federal rules punish you for having a high elk tolerance and good land stewardship that attracted more elk wintering on your place than last year, which was more than the last year, which was more than the last year.

I suspect any of us would be scratching our head with a look of "No good deed goes unpunished." And I suspect very few business would find a way to have zero revenue for a year, yet all the normal operating costs.

So yeah, wildlife is a condition of the land. Some folks not only accept that, but embrace it. What isn't a condition of the land is the punitive rules that punish those who are providing quality habitat for winter wildlife, as do the APHIS rules.

Big kudos to PERC, GYC, and whoever they found as funders for this elk occupancy agreement. This might be one hope for higher elk tolerance in areas with high brucellosis prevalence. We know APHIS and the Senators from the feedlot states of the midwest don't want to change these stupid rules, so we can't count on them to change the consequences placed on good land stewards who attract wintering elk.

Hunters who want more elk would benefit from studying up on the APHIS rules that give every incentive to have no elk on your land and every incentive to have lower elk objectives. Those rules and the perverse incentives created are not there for any scientific or biological reason, rather all political reasons and the "institutional inertia" of government regulation. As elk become more and more the vector for brucellosis infections, those wanting more elk will be best served by working with landowners who want elk to have a place on the land but don't want to bear the entire financial calamity that could come from those elk spreading brucellosis to your herd.

I've proposed that hunters in Montana should press that state to start an insurance fund for ranchers placed under quarantine due to brucellosis brought by elk. If APHIS refuses to change their rules and we want higher elk tolerance, we should find ways to help those who bear all the financial risk related to the presence of brucellosis infected elk.

Is APHIS also the same agency or authority that handles much of the nationwide CWD research and guidance?

Also, is there a brief summary of the APHIS rules that are illogical to save viewers some time?

Thanks

 

[Irrelevant]

@Big Fin fair counter point. My response would be are those cows vaccinated? It's pretty hard to have a runway outbreak in a fully vaccinated herd. But I see your point about being caught between a rock in a hard place due to export regulations. But second, what do you know about this:
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is working cooperatively with State and other Federal agencies toward containing the spread of brucellosis from free-ranging bison and elk to domestic bison and cattle and eliminating the disease from the GYA while maintaining viable free-ranging bison and elk herds in the GYA and in the Parks.

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/animal_diseases/brucellosis/downloads/bruc-facts.pdf

 

[Big Fin]

@Big Fin fair counter point. My response would be are those cows vaccinated? It's pretty hard to have a runway outbreak in a fully vaccinated herd. But I see your point about being caught between a rock in a hard place due to export regulations. But second, what do you know about this:
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is working cooperatively with State and other Federal agencies toward containing the spread of brucellosis from free-ranging bison and elk to domestic bison and cattle and eliminating the disease from the GYA while maintaining viable free-ranging bison and elk herds in the GYA and in the Parks.

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/animal_diseases/brucellosis/downloads/bruc-facts.pdf

Yes, they were all vaccinated. Every producer in Montana vaccinates against brucellosis.

As to what APHIS has done, I would ask them for some explanation, as to my knowledge they've done nothing other than issuing recommendations on further spacial separation, kind of what this elk occupancy agreement does (with no funding by APHIS).

They've not changed the rules related to quarantines on producers with enough positives within a certain period of time. They've not changed the rules related to a state losing its brucellosis-free status and huge consequences that come to all producers in a state where such happens.

Is APHIS also the same agency or authority that handles much of the nationwide CWD research and guidance?

Also, is there a brief summary of the APHIS rules that are illogical to save viewers some time?

Thanks

I'm not sure if APHIS is handling CWD.

I'll give my brief summary on how illogical the APHIS rules are.

Producer level - If you get enough positives in your herd, you get placed under quarantine. You cannot sell any animals from your herd for at least 12 months, assuming you can avoid any further positives. Note, every positive in the GYE has been traced to elk, not bison. So, a producer who has a tolerance for elk ends up being at higher risk for positives. The financial hit is extreme. To carry your herd for a year, with feed, vet, and other costs is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. You can't liquidate your herd, which you probably don't want to do given you many generations you've spent building that bloodline. You have to carry those costs and try to find a way to pay for your own living expenses with no money. By law, you are not allowed to sell any animals. All of this falls on your shoulders because you try to make some accommodations for elk. The rancher who grazes the hell out of his place and hazes elk continually has almost zero risk elk will want to be there, thus creating almost no risk.

Point being, given how financial punitive this positive designation can be, there is every incentive for producers to want no elk and almost zero incentive for producers to tolerate elk.

State level - As explained in the link from @neffa3 above, a state can lose its brucellosis-free status if enough producers within that state go under quarantine. That's so friggin stupid. Why should a producer in Scobey lose their brucellosis-free state status when they are 350 miles from a problem in the Paradise Valley of Montana. There are WY/ID operations closer to the point of infection than many of the MT operators. For MT, WY, or ID to lose its brucellosis-free status would be a death nell for the working ranches in those states. These state wide threats are why Montana has declared war on free range bison, even though we've never had a known transmission from bison.

All of this comes to politics. The feedlot states benefit from the dark cloud that hangs over these Montana producers. They pay lower prices under the premise that they are taking on some disease risk. Yet, I've never seen a package of meat priced lower because it came from the brucellosis DSA (designated surveillance area).

You could get complete bipartisan vote in MT, ID, and WY for changes in APHIS rules related to financial penalties to producers. Likewise, you would likely get complete bipartisan opposition in the feedlot states where their constituents benefit from buying "disease risk" cattle and selling at full market prices.

Summary is this. We have brucellosis in elk at a very high prevalence in the Greater Yellowstone Region. Those elk benefit a ton of people and are the foundation of the entire wild food cycle. Billions are being made from tourism, millions from ranching and hunting, yet we have some crazy rules that result in incentives for fewer elk among the people who own the land where those elk live.

If a $0.25 fee was changed for every YNP vehicle, it would more than cover any damage losses caused by elk infecting cattle. And it would allow for huge amounts to provide incentive for more elk among those who have a personally high elk tolerance, yet cannot afford the financial costs of having more elk.

Hope that gives some insight. This is one of those places where hunters could be on the side of ag producers to the benefit of all; the producer, the hunter, and most importantly, the elk.

 

[brocksw]

Yes, they were all vaccinated. Every producer in Montana vaccinates against brucellosis.

As to what APHIS has done, I would ask them for some explanation, as to my knowledge they've done nothing other than issuing recommendations on further spacial separation, kind of what this elk occupancy agreement does (with no funding by APHIS).

They've not changed the rules related to quarantines on producer with enough positives within a certain period of time. They've not changed the rules related to a state losing its brucellosis-free status and huge consequences that come to all producers in a state where such happens.


I'm not sure if APHIS is handling CWD.

I'll give my brief summary on how illogical the APHIS rules are.

Producer level - If you get enough positives in your herd, you get placed under quarantine. You cannot sell any animals from your herd for at least 12 months, assuming you can avoid any further positives. Note, every positive in the GYE has been traced to elk, not bison. So, a producer who has a tolerance for elk ends up being at higher risk for positives. The financial hit is extreme. To carry your herd for a year, with feed, vet, and other costs is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. You can't liquidate your herd, which you probably don't want to do given you many generations you've spent building that bloodline. You have to carry those costs and try to find a way to pay for your own living expenses with no money. By law, you are not allowed to sell any animals. All of this falls on your shoulders because you try to make some accommodations for elk. The rancher who grazes the hell out of his place and hazes elk continually has almost zero risk elk will want to be there, thus creating almost no risk.

Point being, given how financial punitive this positive designation can be, there is every incentive for producers to want no elk and almost zero incentive for producers to tolerate elk.

State level - As explained in the link from @neffa3 above, a state can lose its brucellosis-free status if enough producers within that state go under quarantine. That's so friggin stupid. Why should a producer in Scobey lose their brucellosis-free state status when they are 350 miles from a problem in the Paradise Valley of Montana. There are WY/ID operations closer to the point of infection than many of the MT operators. For MT, WY, or ID to lose its brucellosis-free status would be a death nell for the working ranches in those states. These state wide threats are why Montana has declared war on free range bison, even though we've never had a known transmission from bison.

All of this comes to politics. The feedlots states benefit from the dark cloud that hangs over these Montana producers. They pay lower prices under the premise that they are taking on some disease risk. Yet, I've never seen a package of meat priced lower because it came from the brucellosis DSA (designated surveillance area).

You could be complete bipartisan vote in MT, ID, and WY for changes in APHIS rules related to financial penalties to producers. Likewise, you would likely get complete bipartisan opposition in the feedlot states where their constituents benefit from buyer "disease risk" cattle and selling full market prices.

Summary is this. We have brucellosis in elk at a very high prevalence in the Greater Yellowstone Region. Those elk benefit a ton of people and are the foundation of the entire wild food cycle. Billions are being made from tourism, millions from ranching and hunting, yet we have some crazy rules that result in incentives for fewer elk among the people who own the land where those elk live.

If a $0.25 fee was changed for every YNP vehicle, it would more than cover any damage losses caused by elk infecting cattle. And it would allow for huge amounts to provide incentive for more elk among those who have a personally high elk tolerance, yet cannot afford the financial costs of having more elk.

Hope that gives some insight. This is one of those places where hunters could be on the side of ag producers to the benefit of all; the producer, the hunter, and most importantly, the elk.

Excellent explanation Randy, Thank you. I agree, those rules seem illogical, unfair, and look to cause more problems than they do present solutions. Agree again that that is a great area for hunters to support ranchers and landowners in a mutually beneficial policy.

Makes me very curious to know UPOMs stance on all this if APHIS rules were changed. Would they still want to eliminate all elk and stop the the APR/bison? That bridge might not be worth saving, but I'd have to imagine other landowners would appreciate the support.

 

[Big Fin]

.....

Makes me very curious to know UPOMs stance on all this if APHIS rules were changed. Would they still want to eliminate all elk and stop the the APR/bison? That bridge might not be worth saving, but I'd have to imagine other landowners would appreciate the support.

A fair question to add might be, "Would UPOM's position depend on whether or not they could leverage unlimited Late Gardiner bull elk tags for their out-of-state billionaire donors?

I suspect they would support changes to the APHIS rules, but given how much they've staked their marketing campaigns around bison as the anti-christ, I doubt they would change any position on bison. They've been presented the data that shows not a single known brucellosis case has been transmitted from bison. We should remind ourselves that UPOM doesn't really want fewer elk, just super low objectives, as that combination gives them a smoke screen behind which they can advocate for unlimited bull elk tags for the out-of-state billionaires who bank roll them.

 

[brocksw]

A fair question to add might be, "Would UPOM's position depend on whether or not they could leverage unlimited Late Gardiner bull elk tags for their out-of-state billionaire donors?

I suspect they would support changes to the APHIS rules, but given how much they've staked their marketing campaigns around bison as the anti-christ, I doubt they would change any position on bison. They've been presented the data that shows not a single know brucellosis case has been transmitted from bison. We should remind ourselves that UPOM doesn't really want fewer elk, just super low objectives, as that combination gives them a smoke screen behind which they can advocate for unlimited bull elk tags for the out-of-state billionaires who bank roll them.

Aka "The Montana Group"

 

[ccc23454]

All i read is better habitat on private property

 

[BenInMT]

Cry me a river for a bunch of ranchers who‘s only accomplishment is that their ancestors were standing in the right place when the federal government was handing out the natives’ land for free.

 

[Irrelevant]

Yes, they were all vaccinated. Every producer in Montana vaccinates against brucellosis.

As to what APHIS has done, I would ask them for some explanation, as to my knowledge they've done nothing other than issuing recommendations on further spacial separation, kind of what this elk occupancy agreement does (with no funding by APHIS).

They've not changed the rules related to quarantines on producers with enough positives within a certain period of time. They've not changed the rules related to a state losing its brucellosis-free status and huge consequences that come to all producers in a state where such happens.


I'm not sure if APHIS is handling CWD.

I'll give my brief summary on how illogical the APHIS rules are.

Producer level - If you get enough positives in your herd, you get placed under quarantine. You cannot sell any animals from your herd for at least 12 months, assuming you can avoid any further positives. Note, every positive in the GYE has been traced to elk, not bison. So, a producer who has a tolerance for elk ends up being at higher risk for positives. The financial hit is extreme. To carry your herd for a year, with feed, vet, and other costs is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. You can't liquidate your herd, which you probably don't want to do given you many generations you've spent building that bloodline. You have to carry those costs and try to find a way to pay for your own living expenses with no money. By law, you are not allowed to sell any animals. All of this falls on your shoulders because you try to make some accommodations for elk. The rancher who grazes the hell out of his place and hazes elk continually has almost zero risk elk will want to be there, thus creating almost no risk.

Point being, given how financial punitive this positive designation can be, there is every incentive for producers to want no elk and almost zero incentive for producers to tolerate elk.

State level - As explained in the link from @neffa3 above, a state can lose its brucellosis-free status if enough producers within that state go under quarantine. That's so friggin stupid. Why should a producer in Scobey lose their brucellosis-free state status when they are 350 miles from a problem in the Paradise Valley of Montana. There are WY/ID operations closer to the point of infection than many of the MT operators. For MT, WY, or ID to lose its brucellosis-free status would be a death nell for the working ranches in those states. These state wide threats are why Montana has declared war on free range bison, even though we've never had a known transmission from bison.

All of this comes to politics. The feedlot states benefit from the dark cloud that hangs over these Montana producers. They pay lower prices under the premise that they are taking on some disease risk. Yet, I've never seen a package of meat priced lower because it came from the brucellosis DSA (designated surveillance area).

You could get complete bipartisan vote in MT, ID, and WY for changes in APHIS rules related to financial penalties to producers. Likewise, you would likely get complete bipartisan opposition in the feedlot states where their constituents benefit from buying "disease risk" cattle and selling at full market prices.

Summary is this. We have brucellosis in elk at a very high prevalence in the Greater Yellowstone Region. Those elk benefit a ton of people and are the foundation of the entire wild food cycle. Billions are being made from tourism, millions from ranching and hunting, yet we have some crazy rules that result in incentives for fewer elk among the people who own the land where those elk live.

If a $0.25 fee was changed for every YNP vehicle, it would more than cover any damage losses caused by elk infecting cattle. And it would allow for huge amounts to provide incentive for more elk among those who have a personally high elk tolerance, yet cannot afford the financial costs of having more elk.

Hope that gives some insight. This is one of those places where hunters could be on the side of ag producers to the benefit of all; the producer, the hunter, and most importantly, the elk.

So you like the idea of paying money to ranchers for high elk tolerance on private lands? What if another private land owner wants to be paid in bull elk tags instead of actual $$?

 

[Gerald Martin]

So you like the idea of paying money to ranchers for high elk tolerance on private lands? What if another private land owner wants to be paid in bull elk tags instead of actual $$?

This is a private group paying a private landowner to allow more elk to winter on his property. FWP has nothing to do with this .

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Cry me a river for a bunch of ranchers who‘s only accomplishment is that their ancestors were standing in the right place when the federal government was handing out the natives’ land for free.

Go back and read the intricacies of onerous regulations with respect to brucellosis. This is truly one area where governmental regulation can put a guy under.

 

[mstolte]

If I am reading the article correctly it's only one ranch of 500 acres. Not sure if this is scalable or a long time solution.

 

[BenInMT]

Go back and read the intricacies of onerous regulations with respect to brucellosis. This is truly one area where governmental regulation can put a guy under.

ho hum a disease brought by livestock that only impacts livestock. Sounds like the concern of people dealing in livestock. Sounds like the expense of this livestock disease should be shouldered by those people, not the public, not public wildlife.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

ho hum a disease brought by livestock that only impacts livestock. Sounds like the concern of people dealing in livestock. Sounds like the expense of this livestock disease should be shouldered by those people, not the public, not public wildlife.

Yes, livestock did introduce it to wildlife. Im not going to change your mind, so there’s no sense in sharing any more information.

This is not just a private land livestock deal, but I don’t expect you to understand that. You’ll shit in your own bed and then wonder why there’s a turd on your pillow.