Irrelevant
Well-known member
Yes. But the idea of paying someone to harbor wildlife doesn't sit well with me. I don't care where the money comes from.
It is contrary to the land ethic, our at least my land ethics
PERC and Elk Occupancy Agreements
- Thread starter brocksw
- Start date
It is contrary to the land ethic, our at least my land ethics
You're a smart guy. It's been explained what this effort is, the conditions that exist, and why it benefits elk and hunters. Maybe you want to have these hypotheticals for the mental exercises or to explore other areas that I'm not seeing as part of this discussion. But, I'll play the game for this post.
I think I've made it clear that I support this program that rewards those trying to accommodate wildlife in the face of obscure government regulations that give them every incentive to do the opposite. I wish it was a binary as you are making it out to be. The smart guy you are restates the situation as if it is black or white and there are only a couple variable to consider. Absent the APHIS rules, the discussion about rewarding elk tolerance would be different. But, the APHIS rules, the fact that producers have been quarantined and unable to sell, the fact that this is one of the nation's most prized elk herds that is wintering further and further north every year, the fact that their are huge incentives to do a lot of things not good for wildlife, cannot be disregarded to make this a simplistic binary yes/no, black/white, for/against discussion.
In this situation, and in the brucellosis surveillance area, I support paying working ranchers who will make accommodations for elk that represent a high risk to them and their livelihood.
To your second point, again, that is supposition and not what is happening here, but I am glad you brought it up, as in Montana we already give away 15% of our bull elk tags to landowners and we get nothing in return; zero, zilch, empty set.
To entertain your "what if," in the hunting districts in this area a bull elk tag isn't going to mean diddly squat, as these landowners and many of the others who are trying to solve the problem are residents. This is an OTC General tag for them. For the non-resident landowners who usually complicate the problem and bear almost no economic risk to their personal livelihood, they can draw a non-resident general tag with regularity. You could award all the bull tags you want for this area and it's not going to make a difference in any landowner's behavior with regards to tolerance of elk or for the benefit of spacial separation. That is where PERC is following the wrong trail in thinking landowner tags in this area somehow would be helpful. There is little to no constraint for impacted producers to get bull elk tags in this area, so landowner elk tags here represent almost no incentive for changed behavior.
I do think a good point, maybe for another thread, is the fact of Montana giving away 15% of our bull elk tags and getting nothing in return. No access, no conservation improvements, no support for higher elk objectives, no requirement to participate in population management seasons, nothing. Montana hunters often come across as if we have it all figured out because our landowner tags aren't transferrable as the vouchers are in some other states. Montana hunters want to claim we aren't commercializing our elk resource because our landowner tags are transferrable. I would argue that we aren't in any position to crow, given how we have transfer a huge public resource and we have not negotiated anything for the public benefit in return. But, I digress.
I suspect most of us feel that way about harboring wildlife. This is not harboring, so you are mixing up some different activities. What you are describing as actions you dislike is not what is happening. This is about spacial separation on lands that are well cared for and are being sought by elk in the later parts of winter, not harboring elk from the general public during hunting seasons. There are seldom any elk here in hunting season.
I suspect your land ethic, like mine, is not comfortable with arbitrary government rules punishing those who provide good habitat and those who want to make space for wildlife. Offsetting that negative incentive is what this effort accomplishes.
I am glad you stated it in the context of the land ethic. I think Aldo Leopold is respected for his writing and insight to the land ethic. To quote him on this topic, “Conservation will ultimately boil down to rewarding the private landowner who conserves the public interest.”
But again, if it is for the purpose of intellectual exercise and "supposition," it becomes and endless string of rabbit holes about what could be, what might be, mostly in a context that disregards what this is and the facts that exist in this designated surveillance area of brucellosis.
Reality is, it would be a lot easier for many of these working ranches to pressure the state of Montana to just shoot the hell out of these wintering elk. Or, to fence their properties so no elk could use them. Or, to sell to developers who seem to own the Park Country Planning Commission as much as they do in Gallatin County. Or, (insert many other realistic options that make more financial sense). The end result of those likely outcomes is a lot fewer elk for all of us.
I get that some want to die on their sword of principles. Some have the privilege to do that on this topic. For some this discussion may be a fun abstract exercise, as they don't have to deal with the realities of it. For others it is a backyard reality that we deal with and we see people directly impacted by it. We also see good people, communities, businesses, hunters, and wildlife benefit when we don't refuse possible solutions due to "principles," whatever those principles might be for the person observing from afar.
Back to my original comment. Kudos to PERC and GYC and the private funder who made this happen. It is a new model being used to solve problems where government agencies have not been able to do so. How applicable it will be within the brucellosis areas of MT, ID, and WY, only time will tell.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
Passive aggressive... good start
Sword of principles? I can't think of anyone else who's claimed that, or advocated for that, or has an entire "platform" dedicated to THEIR sword principles.
Which is exactly what you mean. YOUR principles. No one else's, there's no room.
You've definitely pushed me from lukewarm to cold. I'm out.
Have a good day.
Hunting Wife
Well-known member
Not that simple with brucellosis. The Brucella organism has a complex biology. It’s an obligate intracellular bacterium and there are many strains, which makes it challenging to “fully” vaccinate against. Wild-type strains in particular can not be controlled by vaccination alone at this time.
Recent advances in Brucella abortus vaccines - Veterinary Research
Brucella abortus vaccines play a central role in bovine brucellosis control/eradication programs and have been successfully used worldwide for decades. Strain 19 and RB51 are the approved B. abortus vaccines strains most commonly used to protect cattle against infection and abortion. However...
veterinaryresearch.biomedcentral.com
There are many, many programs in which a private entity pays a willing private landowner to implement actions to benefit wildlife and ag producers. Some of our most successful conservation programs use this model. I guess I don’t see the difference.
Many agencies have historically been involved in CWD research and guidance. However USDA has taken a more lead position in recent years. The recently introduced CWD bill would be wholly administered by USDA as I understand it.
kwyeewyk
Well-known member
I've seen similar programs for non-game species, CRP is probably the biggest example except it's government funded, and the Douglas County exception on the CRP acreage limit has been attributed to the survival of the Moses Coulee population of sage-grouse. State Acres For Wildlife (SAFE) is a newer example that benefits grouse along with most all shrub-steppe species including mule deer and chuckar. Frustrating for many of us that more landowners aren't willing to do this voluntarily, but that's the world we live in and I support these types of efforts if that's what it takes.
First when i read this i all i seen was better private lands for wildlife but its from private funding so whatever, but this site spends entire year complaining about private land elk in MT and how to get them back on public. I am no biologist but isnt cheering for better private feed lands contrary to public land hunters benefits.
I dont know much about brucellosis but sentiment i hear is not actual herd devastation but more about ranchers and money. I looked up cost impact of it and this is what i found from the USDA APHIS website, and i found it VERY interesting, i will keep opinion to myself, link below(dated aug 2020). "Annual losses from lowered milk production, aborted calves and pigs, and reduced breeding efficiency have decreased from more than $400 million in 1952 to less than $1 million today"
www.aphis.usda.gov
I dont know much about brucellosis but sentiment i hear is not actual herd devastation but more about ranchers and money. I looked up cost impact of it and this is what i found from the USDA APHIS website, and i found it VERY interesting, i will keep opinion to myself, link below(dated aug 2020). "Annual losses from lowered milk production, aborted calves and pigs, and reduced breeding efficiency have decreased from more than $400 million in 1952 to less than $1 million today"
USDA APHIS | Facts About Brucellosis
www.aphis.usda.gov
El Jason
Well-known member
Yes and no. It’s a little more complex than a simple binary outlook, particularly in a place such as the paradise valley. You can’t apply GNY elk issues to the breaks or the Little Snowies.
I’m honestly puzzled why this is such a polarizing issue.
Not passive aggressive; rather fact. You are a smart guy, one who often provides comments that force me to think about what my current views are. You come from a different place geographically and generationally. Your comments can be beneficial to me. You never seem to pull any punches when commenting about our some parts of our work or when rebutting some of my posts. I consider your comments as I try to learn. Against better judgement, I engaged in your direct questions to me where you stated the questions as "what ifs" and suppositions.
You also stated that what others were supporting as possible solutions on this complex issue was contradictory to your ethic, starting down a path that seldom ends well in a forum discussion. The term "ethic" is based in ethos, principle, strongly held beliefs. There is room for every principle, ethos, ethic to be discussed.
In my 30+ years of being involved in these issues, I've seen plenty of people willing to die on the sword of their principles. I've done it at times and realized the folly. With this issue, a problem ongoing for decades, people on both sides have previously eliminated potential solutions, due to "their principles."
Out of respect for you and past benefit I've realized from some of your comments, I was willing to answer your direct questions and engage for one post. This outcome reaffirms my initial hesitations.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Perfect is the enemy of good. This is a good project. Not ideal, but it solves some problems for both elk and the ranchers. A win/win. It keeps elk from being hazed off of areas and returning to spring in worse physical condition.
Like @JLS, not sure why the argument. This plan might not look good in another area, but in paradise valley it make sense.
brocksw
Well-known member
I can't speak for everyone but I know PERC being involved is the first red flag for me. They're actively promoting transferable landowner tags in MT and their whole business model is "Free market environmentalism", to me the NA Model is the opposite of free market on purpose. So any time they're involved it makes me nervous. Not saying they can't and won't do anything good, but the foundational concept of their org certainly doesn't allow for much trust on my end.
Not to mention KC Walsh sits on their board.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
The involvement of PERC made me initially suspicious as well. But the result is solution that helps the resource and the rancher, so I'm for it. I am pleasantly surprised that I can agree with PERC on a program. I don't think we should be against anything just because of the organizations or people involved. We should keep an open mind on things and see it for its effectiveness for the resource. I consider myself a conservationist before I consider myself a hunter. I like solutions that help both the resource and the sport, but I will take any small victories as progress.
Elkmagnet
Well-known member
I would need to see the numbers to form an opinion. I am generally in the camp of removing all wildlife from private no matter the cost to the wildlife. The leverage landowners have on sportsman has never been worth the rewards to me.
IF we have to kill off herds that winter on private so be it. IF entire ranges are void of elk so be it.
As it is now we are holding the numbers of good public land herds down as some type of "compromise" that effectively neuters sportsman.
Sportsman need to be more vocal about removing livestock from public lands. Our silence is us relinquishing our leverage. Our leverage is a tit for tat situation.
As a sportsman why am I required to walk on egg shells while our game departments manage elk to the social tolerance of the grazing lease holders. They are in direct competition with elk for grass obviously they want less elk. Not just on private but in total. In my area elk numbers are being reduced on public not because of biologic sustainability but because of grazers being more vocal than sportsman and currently having all of the leverage. Grazers are not having to walk on egg shells.
Should we be giving them more leverage?
IF we have to kill off herds that winter on private so be it. IF entire ranges are void of elk so be it.
As it is now we are holding the numbers of good public land herds down as some type of "compromise" that effectively neuters sportsman.
Sportsman need to be more vocal about removing livestock from public lands. Our silence is us relinquishing our leverage. Our leverage is a tit for tat situation.
As a sportsman why am I required to walk on egg shells while our game departments manage elk to the social tolerance of the grazing lease holders. They are in direct competition with elk for grass obviously they want less elk. Not just on private but in total. In my area elk numbers are being reduced on public not because of biologic sustainability but because of grazers being more vocal than sportsman and currently having all of the leverage. Grazers are not having to walk on egg shells.
Should we be giving them more leverage?
Elkmagnet
Well-known member
I don't see that as an issue I see hunters having a beta mentality to be the issue. I'm tired of bribing and begging ranchers to allow us to have elk.
