Sportsmen's Elk Lawsuit Against FWP and FWP Commission

[katqanna]

Today, in Helena District Court, the Goetz, Baldwin & Geddes law firm filed the lawsuit - Skyline Sportsmen's Association and Anaconda Sportsmen's Club V. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks and Montana Fish & Wildlife Commission

Here is the page with the current and upcoming links in the case

Here is the Press Release:
Sportsmen Sue FWP Charging No Science, Law Violations and Breach of Public Trust

In a lawsuit filed earlier today in Helena District Court, the Skyline Sportsmen Assn of Butte and Anaconda Sportsmen's Club argue that Fish, Wildlife & Parks and the FWP Commission committed scientific, legal and Public Trust errors when it approved a management plan intended to lethally prevent wild elk from transmitting brucellosis to cattle, as well as the recent modification to the 2014 Work Plan which would use FWP sportsmen's dollars to construct potentially miles of 6-8 ft. tall wildlife obstructing fencing in the Paradise Valley.

Lorry Thomas, President of the Anaconda Sportsmen's Club expressed one of their concerns, “The Anaconda Sportsmen's Club has always been for wildlife friendly fencing. This is one of the reasons we are against eight foot high fences.”

Skyline and Anaconda members charge that FWP and the FWP Commission acted outside the bounds of existing state law governing elk management in Montana. They also say the elk-brucellosis plan is based on political, rather than scientific information that should have been tested in a formal environmental review process.

“One of the key points of the Public Trust, the cornerstone of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, is that decisions must be guided by valid science,” said Tony Schoonen of the Skyline Sportsmen's Association in Butte. “Science has not been followed by FWP when it comes to their actions to deal with elk that may be carrying brucellosis.”

Wild elk are blamed for outbreaks of brucellosis among cattle, occurring only in a small location of the Paradise Valley. Research is surfacing which questions whether these wildlife are solely responsible for the brucellosis infections in cattle.

The FWP elk brucellosis plan being challenged will use methods similar to the way wild bison are handled around Yellowstone Park by the Montana Department of Livestock. The wild elk are to be obstructed and killed if necessary to separate them from livestock.

“The Public Trust has been violated. Skyline and Anaconda Sportsmen are asking the court to protect science-based management of Montana’s wild elk from political and unscientific decisions by the FWP Commission and FWP administrators,” said Kathryn QannaYahu, conservation hunter and researcher for EMWH.org, who supplied documentation and testimony to the Goetz, Baldwin & Geddes law firm in Bozeman, representing the Skyline and Anaconda sportsmen.

Skyline Sportsmen's Association president, Les Castren stated, “Our group is adamantly opposed to lethal removal of elk up through May 15th,” citing Montana law for a Feb. 15th cut off date, based on biological science, as well as required public hunter access for any game damage considerations, a tool excluded from the contested FWP and FWP Commission approved elk program.

Tony Schoonen concluded, “Skyline and Anaconda Sportsmen hope we can get FWP and its elk management efforts back on the right track, so we can go forward with scientific management of our wild elk."

 

[katqanna]

There appears to be some confusion on this suit.

Yesterday, a lawsuit was filed that contests the whole of the Elk Management In Areas With Brucellosis, the yearly Work Plans and the recent modifications approved in April.

1. This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief related to the Montana “Elk Management Guidelines in Areas with Brucellosis” and related work plans, including recently approved local modifications for the Paradise Valley (collectively referred to herein as the “elk-brucellosis management plan”).

What was not filed yesterday, and mentioned by Tony in Brett French's article as being discussed with FWP, at their (FWP) urging, was a TRO (Temporary Restraining Order) and Injunction, concerning the recent modifications approved on April 10th, which involved extended kill permits to May 15th and the miles of 6-8 foot high wildlife obstructing fencing.

Hunters file lawsuit to stop elk kill permits, fencing

During the fall and winter meetings of the watershed working group, they were chomping at the bit, counting down the days till the Work Plan took effect for the hazings, kill permits, Elk Management Removals (last years dispersal hunts) and stack fencing. As explained to me, I was pointing out that not only had Legislative Services issued a statement that this Elk Brucellosis program was operating outside of MCA, which I read off at the second meeting, but I explained to some of the ranchers, hoping it would get around, that according to the law, the only time you can shoot elk is during general hunting season, prescribed by MCA; during a Game Damage hunt, also legislated by MCA (Kujula repeatedly, publicly stated this program was not Game Damage); and during a Management Season Hunt, also covered by MCA. Anything else is poaching and according to laws governing poaching there is a 3 years statue of limitations, which means any kills from last season, in addition to this season could be litigated as poaching.

So I called FWP to find out the current status of all actions from this 2014 Work Plan. Except for a couple hazings, nothing had even been requested from these ranchers that were so adamant in the meetings, not even from Druska Kinkie who had requested last years kill permit and complained that when she finally received it, it was too late to use it and the elk had moved on.

So why did they not use any "tool" they were demanding more lethal objectives for, complaining the quota for the DSA was too small, gotta get rid of the elk at every meeting? Could it be they decided that no action was preferable in the face of legal action? If so, what does that say about their motives and legal position?

Are those same "infected" elk that come from all over the 5 counties in the DSA, just to infect cattle in a few mile area of the southern portion of HD 317, further messing with these ranchers by staying the hell away from all of their ranches for the 4 1/2 months of this 2014 Work Plan so far? Those are some pretty wiley elk in the DSA! Maybe brucellosis exposure makes them super intelligent. In which case I know some people that should be lining up to get infected.

 

[muleguy]

No kill permits

Looks like the lawsuit has already paid off - Nice to see some sportsman's groups have their priority's straight.

http://billingsgazette.com/news/sta...cle_678c2545-f414-5bdc-a5c6-1325fb6c99dd.html

 

[katqanna]

This is not really a concession when there is only one week left to go on the kill permit portion of the Paradise Valley modifications. On top of that, due to my telling the lethally zealous ranchers that were counting down the days to Jan 1, at the meeting that this program was outside of the law, as well as explaining the 3 years statue of limitations on poaching, they have not filed, from Jan 1 to now, for a single kill permit or Elk Management Removal (last years dispersal hunts), nor the stack fencing.

The fencing modification (miles of 6-8 ft high wildlife obstructing fencing, which has no end date) was not negotiated.

A question - does Director Hagener have legal authority to concede an FWP Commission passed proposal?

 

[katqanna]

Montana retreats from plan to kill elk to lessen disease risk to cattle

Its gaining some traction, but still not the awareness that this lawsuit is for the entire elk brucellosis management program, not just the kill permits for two weeks in the Paradise Valley.

Was working on my Montana infection chart and map last night, digging through the reports and came across a bit of data I missed on a page supplied by the DOL's Christian MacKay. They knew I had some 2007 information and the 2008 Epidemiology report, so that is all they sent me for my public information request, obstructing the rest. But, heres some information that should piss both ranchers and hunters off alike.

A bred heifer from Emigrant arrived at the Bridger ranch in November 2005. She was due to calve in Jan. 2006, but aborted in Dec. of 2005. Remember, abortion is a sign of brucellosis infection. She was bred again and aborted again in 2006. No fetal testing was done. She was then sold to a ranch in Carbon County, who then sold her to Iowa in 2007 where tests were done and she was positive for brucellosis.

Why were no fetal tests done? Why sell a cow off that has aborted twice and not do the brucellosis tests here in Montana? Not only was the owners herd depopulated as a result of this, but there was a nearby woman who had a small herd grazing on their property and her herd also had to be depopulated.

Theres alot more going on here than they have been letting on, which is why they have not released all the information I requested unless I pay them for the public information that our taxpayer dollars have already paid for and their salaries pay for.

 

[shoots-straight]

Kat, what can you tell me about rodeo stock in the area, and the chance that they brought in the disease? I understand they aren't tested?

 

[tjones]

Good work by these sportsmens groups. The fact they realize there are more issues facing Montana's wildlife other than predators is reason to support them.

 

[RobertR]

I do believe that brucellosis started at the "buffalo ranch" within the park by dairy cows and was discover that bison contracted the disease around 1917.
Great work by sportsman's groups

 

[shoots-straight]

I do believe that brucellosis started at the "buffalo ranch" within the park by dairy cows and was discover that bison contracted the disease around 1917.
Great work by sportsman's groups

I don't want to know where it started. I wasn't very clear. The outbreaks in cattle, in Paradise Valley? Thats the ones that I heard could be traces to rodeo stock.

Anyone?

 

[RobertR]

Not positive about the year but it was a Mexican cattle breed called corriente used for roping and bulldogging.

 

[shoots-straight]

Is there any documentation on those cattle being the carrier?

 

[Kneetopia]

Great to see someone watching with an eye for these details. Nice work

 

[katqanna]

Sorry, I was out playing in Park County today. I filmed bison up off of Jardine road; took pictures of the free bison fencing that some of the NGO's offer to show others that their concerns can be addressed and still have bison as wildlife on public lands; drove the roads where the 2008 and 2013 brucellosis infections occurred to get the lay of the land and see if I could spot ranch tag numbers on the cows ears, as well as looking for a mailbox, ranch or the owner whose name ends in "ard" since the DOL wont comply with my public information request (those were the last three letters on my APHIS FOIA that werent blacked out), one of those ranches on Elbow Creek Road had a nice "No Hunting" sign on the main arch and then ended the day with the RMEF banquet in Livingston. Not surprised, I did not see any of the watershed "working group" members there. BTW, while on Mill Creek road, Elbow Creek Road and East River road before and after these other two, I did not see one elk around their ranches. They must still be thwarting the ranchers who have not requested any kill permits, or EMR's this season. Coming north on East River Road I did see 3 longhorns across from the Pine Creek restaurant. Made me miss Texas a wee bit.

Shoots, the 2007 and 2008 cases were both Corriente stock. Though DOL reported that the cases were not related and were born here in Montana, not Mexico. Not saying they can be trusted after all the inconsistencies in data between DOL news releases and APHIS reports and papers. The 2007 case had a mixed herd of angus and corriente. 2011 is black angus and the 2013 red angus. The 2008 case is on Elbow Creek Road, as well as the 2013. But, the 2008 did not source from the that ranch, they purchased it from a nearby ranch with a ranch tag number of 601 (still trying to find out which ranch that is). I have tons of little pieces that I have gleaned that I am putting into charts and maps, especially since DOL will not provide the public documentation.

I am patient, persistent and excellent with puzzles. I will untangle this Gordian Knot so that sportsmen get the truth about our public wildlife. And then there is also what the lawsuit will turn up or a legislative audit.

 

[shoots-straight]

So what sort of testing does rodeo stock go through? I've heard that they get tested too, or not. I need some reliable information. Where can I go for that. Also I have heard that at least in one case the DNA from the Brucellosis pointed to elk. I have no confirmation on that though.

 

[katqanna]

So what sort of testing does rodeo stock go through? I've heard that they get tested too, or not. I need some reliable information. Where can I go for that. Also I have heard that at least in one case the DNA from the Brucellosis pointed to elk. I have no confirmation on that though.

Shoots, here is the DOL page on Testing Requirements. "Cattle originating from Brucellosis Class Free States: No brucellosis testing is required except: Animals that are being adult vaccinated to meet Montana's entry requirements or that will be quarantined for adult vaccination on arrival must have a negative brucellosis test within 30 days prior to entry. "

Here is the current Importation of Animals and Semen into Montana. Sporting bovine (i) are your rodeo stock. But, here is an important question, what was on the books prior to 2007?

I have just started to look into requirements as a result of an academic work on brucellosis lineages. There is one cattle infection source in east Idaho 1986, that in two different works, is grouped with our Montana cattle infection cases. I have contacted Idaho and am trying to track that info down. This may be important because the case is not only grouped with ours, but the current brucella lineage applied to Montana is dated to about 29 years ago, the same time frame as the east Idaho case.

I do know of a rancher in our DSA who has calves born in spring, ships to his Idaho ranch for grazing and then back again. I am NOT saying this rancher is responsible! I am merely showing that an example exists of the interstate transfer of cattle from Idaho to our DSA. A cow could also have been purchased. Montana has interstate agreements with Idaho, Wyoming and Oregon.

Additionally, there is a case of Idaho selling dairy cattle to Washington, supposedly guaranteed brucellosis free on paperwork, they get to Washington and turn up brucellosis positive. I found the court case online. The 1986 Idaho case was thought to be holstein dairy by the Idaho State Department of Agriculture vet that I spoke with on Friday. I am waiting for a call back from the Boise office.

There are cases of RB51 vaccine blooms. A case in Wyoming of a ranch owner and his son who also worked at one of those feedgrounds (one duty being removing elk abortions) who appears to have infected his own cattle herd (tall fences, no elk commingling opportunity). So while that elk genetics is a match to those cattle, can you blame the wildlife in that case for the transmission?

Shoots, I am not saying that elk have not, nor cannot transmit to cattle. What I am saying is that there appears to be just cause to thoroughly research this matter and see what has been taking place. Why is there no such investigation and report from FWP? This is our wildlife. Do we just accept the say so from DOL and APHIS, who have mission statements against our wildlife and clearly political objectives as well, that all cases of cattle infections have been (or are insinuated) from elk, targeting our elk, our wildlife agency and our sportsmens dollars? Me, I prefer to ask questions and verify, especially when I see a mounting number of red flags, like a bred heifer that aborts twice and no fetal testing is done, is sold off, or that several papers and reports show the 2011 infections coming from the 2008 case.

We need transparency and accountability in our agencies.

Here is the 2007 Brucellosis DOl Summary that Christian MacKay sent to me.

 

[katqanna]

Another lawsuit against Bullock administration a win for elk by George Ochenski

Now, in the latest lawsuit, Butte’s Skyline Sportsmen’s Association and the Anaconda Sportsmen’s Club are taking the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks to court over a proposed elk-killing plan that, as is becoming an unfortunate pattern for this administration, ignored public input in favor of a politically motivated “solution.”