Statement re: Elk Farms by Idaho Fish & Game

Washington Hunter

Well-known member
Joined
May 8, 2002
Messages
4,121
Location
Rochester, Washington
Idaho Department of Fish & Game PO Box 25 600 S. Walnut Street Boise, Idaho 83707 www.fishandgame.idaho.gov

ISSUE STATEMENT Domestic Elk Farming January 12, 2006

Background: Idaho is home to approximately 125,000 wild elk that provide hunting opportunity for approximately 100,000 resident and nonresident hunters. In 2005, elk hunters spent approximately $67 million dollars on fuel, motels, restaurants, tags/licenses, guides, etc. These direct expenditures resulted in an estimated economic impact of over $170 million to Idaho. Many of Idaho’s rural family businesses are dependent on wildlife-based recreational dollars.

The number of domestic elk in Idaho has increased substantially since 1994 when the Idaho legislature deemed the possession of domestic cervidae (elk, fallow deer, and reindeer) as an agricultural pursuit to be administered by the Idaho State Department of Agriculture. Currently, there are 78 elk farms in Idaho possessing 5,843 elk, not including calves. Historically, domestic elk were raised primarily for velvet antlers, meat, and breeding stock. Recently, operations offering shooting opportunity for domestic bull elk have increased. The Idaho State Department of Agriculture (ISDA) believes 14 elk farms currently offer shooting opportunity.

Many of the new shooting operations are located in areas important to wild elk. The increase in domestic elk farms near or in wild elk habitat, particularly shooting operations, has increased the risk of contact between domestic and wild elk. Domestic elk can be an attractant for wild elk, particularly during mating season. Single fences do not prevent contact between domestic and wild elk. Nose-to-nose contact through fences and escape of domestic elk are common occurrences where domestic elk farms are within wild elk range. Additionally, domestic elk farms have resulted in confinement of wild deer, elk, and moose.

Issues: Disease - Diseases of primary concern to both the Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) and ISDA are the “regulatory diseases” including chronic wasting disease (CWD), brucellosis, and bovine tuberculosis (TB). Additionally, IDFG is concerned about diseases and parasites not endemic to Idaho wild elk including meningeal worm, paratuberculosis, giant liver fluke, and others (known and unknown). Idaho State Department of Agriculture only maintains a monitoring and control program for the regulatory diseases. Domestic elk from areas endemic for meningeal worm are prohibited from being directly imported into Idaho by ISDA rules. However, the rules do not prevent the importation of any elk originating from areas endemic for meningeal worm.

Giant liver flukes were discovered a couple of years ago as a mortality cause in a domestic elk operation in eastern Idaho. In September 2006, an unmarked yearling bull elk, harvested while standing with escaped domestic elk, was found to have giant liver flukes. It is unknown whether this unmarked elk was wild or domestic. There is no evidence to indicate these two cases of giant liver flukes are related. Additionally, wild elk in portions of eastern Idaho carry brucellosis.

The risk of disease or parasite transmission can be minimized if contact between domestic and wild elk doesn’t occur. Additionally, comprehensive and enforceable regulatory mechanisms must exist to prevent importation of diseases and parasites not endemic to Idaho. Because disease control in wild, free-ranging populations is problematic, disease prevention is preferable.

Genetic Interchange - The long-term consequences of genetic interchange between domestic and wild elk are unknown. However, experiences with interbreeding of other domestic and wild animals indicate survival and reproduction of offspring can be compromised.

Current state law prohibits the importation and possession of Eurasian red deer or red deer hybrids. However, the recent discovery of an elk with red deer genetic influence suggests the current screening processes and regulatory procedures are inadequate to prevent introduction of red deer genes into wild elk. As with diseases, comprehensive and enforceable regulatory mechanisms that prevent contact between wild and domestic elk are necessary to prevent genetic interchange between wild and domestic elk.

Confinement of Wild Cervids – Idaho State Department of Agriculture rules prohibit wild cervids from being confined within domestic elk farms. However, ISDA defers management of wild cervid confinement to IDFG. Routinely, IDFG works with ISDA and domestic elk farmers to remove wild cervids from inside enclosures. Attempts to haze wild cervids from inside domestic elk enclosures have had limited success, especially in large enclosures with rugged terrain and thick cover.

Inadequate fence design or maintenance, drifting snow, and fence damage caused by falling trees commonly create opportunities for wild cervids to enter fenced facilities. If contact occurs between wild and domestic cervids, and disease or genetic interchange is a concern, IDFG lethally removes the wild cervids. Lethal removal has been conducted by domestic elk farmers (with IDFG approval), agency personnel, and in very limited circumstances, sportsmen.

Loss of wild cervids that become confined, or are lethally removed, represent lost hunting and viewing opportunities for Idaho hunters and wildlife enthusiasts.

Impacts on Native Cervids - Many domestic elk farms are located in agricultural areas and pose minimal threat to wild cervids. However, the increase in domestic elk shooting operations has increased the number of elk farms located in wild cervid habitats. Concerns exist over high fences excluding wild cervids from important seasonal habitats (i.e. winter range) and altering important movement corridors. Use of Sportsman’s Funds – The Idaho Department of Fish & Game is almost entirely funded by license funds and federal funding derived from excise taxes on sporting goods. IDFG receives no general state fund revenues. Idaho Department of Fish & Game costs associated with responding to wild cervids inside domestic elk farms or escapes of domestic elk are paid with existing revenue sources. Since July 2003, IDFG has documented a minimum of $75,000 spent on attempting to remove wild cervids from inside domestic elk farms and assisting with efforts to capture escaped domestic elk.

Public Support for Hunting – In Idaho, and throughout America, wildlife is owned by the public. Uses of wildlife, including hunting, are dependent on public support. Numerous surveys have indicated that public support for hunting is largely contingent on principles of fair chase. Several sporting organizations have adopted definitions of fair chase, some of them different. However, a common theme among the definitions is that an animal has a reasonable chance of eluding a hunter.

Idaho Fish and Game Commission Statement of Policy Regarding Domestic Elk January 11, 2007

Whereas, the Idaho Fish and Game Commission (“Commission”) is responsible by law to preserve, protect, perpetuate and manage wildlife in the state of Idaho.

Whereas, the Commission has a strong desire and responsibility to protect wild elk from diseases and genetic impurities.

Whereas, the Commission believes that domestic elk herds pose real and substantial risks to Idaho’s wild elk populations.

Now, therefore, the Commission adopts the following policy statements with regards to domestic elk operations:

1. The Commission encourages the state of Idaho to enact legislation and establish and fund appropriate policies to protect wild cervids from disease and genetic risks posed by domestic elk.

2. The Commission does not recognize the shooting of domestic elk for recreational purposes within confined facilities as “hunting.”

3. The Commission advocates the principles of fair chase and ethics in the harvest of wild game.

4. The Commission is opposed to spending sportsmen’s dollars on the management or control of domestic elk.

Adopted: January 11, 2007 Idaho Fish and Game Commissioners

/S/ /S/ Cameron Wheeler, Chairman Wayne Wright, Vice Chair Upper Snake Region 6 Magic Valley Region 4

/S/ /S/ Tony McDermott Alex Irby Panhandle Region 1 Clearwater Region 2

/S/ /S/ Bob Barowsky Randall C. Budge Southwest Region 3 Southeast Region 5

/S/ Gary Power Salmon Region 7
 
2. The Commission does not recognize the shooting of domestic elk for recreational purposes within confined facilities as “hunting.”

3. The Commission advocates the principles of fair chase and ethics in the harvest of wild game.

4. The Commission is opposed to spending sportsmen’s dollars on the management or control of domestic elk.

Now there's some basic words of wisdom.
 
You didn't like #1? How about $75,000/14 places to shoot an elk or approx. $5400 each. I guess they could prorate it by size of the place or number of elk harvested and numbr of years in the business or something. That would be a start. Do people that take elk there pay anything to Idaho F&G, does anyone know? They should have been doing that from the get go probably.
 
#1 is the real problem, I'd say, manageing genetics and diseases. The other's, 2.,3., and 4. are more like personal issues and preferences and less of an actual physical problem to deal with. #1 is important.

What kind of laws are there about management of cattle spreading diseases to wild elk?
 
Here's a column from the Boise paper 1/28/07:

Idahoans appreciate fair chase and understand true hunting
Canned hunting is just shooting; Legislature needs to discuss shooter-bull operations this session
- Idaho Statesman
Edition Date: 01/28/07


The mountains around Council were hidden in fog. Everything was gray and black.
I had an elk permit for the area and thought it was going to be a sure thing. It was going to be easy meat for the freezer.

My buddies had scouted the area a week before when the late fall weather was clear and beautiful. It changed fast, as the weather can in the mountains of Idaho.

It was socked in. I moved slowly across an opening on a slope mixed with timber and brush and found a place to sit down where I could lean up against a ponderosa pine tree. It was a good spot to scan the mountainside where the elk had been passing through.

You've got to love sitting up there in the woods and mountains and watching everything that's going on, whether it's listening to a squirrel chattering or just watching the dried grasses waving in the breeze. It's part of the hunt.

Hours later, nothing. My sure thing? Ha!

But you know, real hunting is not a sure thing. And that's fine.

Those elk could have decided to move out and migrate miles away. I was hunting public national forest lands that go for hundreds of miles. The animals are free roaming.

That's real hunting.

That's why lots of Idaho hunters are disgusted with the idea of high-fence hunting or shooter-bull operations, where elk are raised in enclosures to be shot in the enclosures by people who just want to shoot something and forget the hunt.

Instead of taking the chance of hunting in a general hunt and on public lands, and possibly getting skunked, the shooter plunks down big bucks to shoot a large bull elk in a fenced hunting area.

Some do it for convenience because they don't have the time to scout areas for a real hunt.

But that brings up the question of what is true hunting? What is fair chase? Hunting is stalking an animal that has plenty of room to give you the slip. I don't know how many times I've tracked what I thought was a big buck that was leaving huge prints in the snow, thinking at any moment that I was going to come up on him. Then, I'd come up over a ridge and the darn buck would be clear over the horizon.

That's fair chase.

Hunting brings no guarantees. The only guarantees we have in Idaho are that we have lots of public lands on which our deer and elk can roam and on which we can pursue them.

I saw a TV show on hunting whitetails in Texas. I thought it was really cool at first. I watched as a hunter pulled off a shot and got a massive buck. The hunter was gleaming.

As the camera pulled away, I almost choked. You could see that he was on a ranch and there were whitetail bucks standing around like cattle.

That's not hunting. He could have pursued that big buck from one fence line to another. That's not fair chase.

Idaho isn't Texas. We shouldn't condone shooter-bull operations.

Shooter-bull operations and elk farms are a complicated subject, but one that is not going to go away. The Idaho Legislature is going to have to take a serious look at it this session.

Elk farms are a different story. Families are raising elk to process game meats and jerky for the market. There's a place for that as long as it is strictly controlled to prevent any effect on wild elk populations.

Hunting animals in enclosures, or what is called high-fence hunting, isn't hunting. It's just shooting.

Idahoans are true hunters.

To offer story ideas or comments, contact reporter Pete Zimowsky at [email protected] or 377-6445.
 
The Idaho Stateman author calls it getting skunked when he sat on the side of a hill for hours and saw nothing to shoot. That happens quite often in all types of hunting. Good luck with your management issues. If Idahoans are true hunters, then Texans are true wildlife managers, besides being hunters.

Texas does have hunters, see the 2001 national survey
http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/fishing.html

Idaho had a $982 million dollar impact from outdoor recreation while Texas had a $5.4 billion dollar impact. Despite the big differences in public land the percentage expenditures were very similar, I think, for the two states.

Idaho 30.1 %, Texas 31.5% for trip expenditures,
Idaho 56.2 %, Texas 53.7 % for equiptment expenditures,
Idaho 13.6 %, Texas 15.6 % for liscenses and leases.

If Texas does well with high fences, then Idaho can too, right?
 
Tom do you think the additional monetary impact could be explained by higher population in your backwards state?
 
Tom,

You're a statistician...surely you see the difference in the dollar amounts between Texas and Idaho being a function of population more than one of high-fenced VS a state with no high fences. I dont think that the difference in expenditures has anything to do with Texas and its great "game" management plans.

Also, total outdoor recreation revenue can mean everything from hiking, fishing, hunting, bird watching etc.

I'm just going on a hunch here...no science or fact to back it up...but I'd guess Texas has at least 5 times the population (people to spend money on outdoor ativities) than Idaho...
 
The Tone, I think its because of the thoughts of some in the Armpit of Idaho, what do you think? Where is that anyway, you say you're from there, right? You just feel like you're from the Armpit or what?

Idaho has 165K non-resident fisherpersons, Texas has 221K.
Idaho had 47K non-resident hunterpersons, Texas had 100K.

from the same links I gave above. I guess the Texas coast explains the fishing difference, but what explains Texas haveing over double the non-resident hunters?
 
Here's a link with land and water areas.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0108355.html

Idaho 83.6K sq miles, Texas 268.6K sq miles, so Texas is 3.2 times bigger. It grosses 5.4 billion compared to 0.98 for Idaho, so it grosses more per square mile. Texas has 1.2 million hunters verus Idaho's 0.2 million, 6 times more hunters, so it has more hunters per square mile.

It must be the way the animals are managed that explains some of the difference. That's what I'm thinking. Idaho could have more income per square mile from hunting and have more hunters per square mile and have more animals per square mile, if they managed more like Texas. They don't manage with those goals in mind, I guess.
 
Currently to me the Armpit is Lewiston; feel free to look it up. Lowest point in the state and plus it smells bad here due to a paper mill in town, kind of like an armpit. I'm not the first to describe it as that; I actually like the town, kind of bummed I'm moving away from it shortly. What does that have to do with this though?

There is no use trying to talk sense into you, you never have and never will get "it".
 
It must be the way the animals are managed that explains some of the difference. That's what I'm thinking. Idaho could have more income per square mile from hunting and have more hunters per square mile and have more animals per square mile, if they managed more like Texas. They don't manage with those goals in mind, I guess.

Or there are more suckers willing to pay money to shoot an animal inside an "enclosure" then there are people who want to hunt hard for native, free range, fair chase wildlife.

Does anyone from Idaho wish their states hunting was more like Texas? I have never heard that one. You talk about maximizing animals and hunters but never talk about what is good for the animals or the land.

If they managed game animals like Texas then there would be less hunters and less opportunity period.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that just becuase Texas has more hunters that it makes the way Texas does it right. There are many who don't want to hunt "wild" hogs and deer over corn feeders or introduced species that do not belong on the landscape. If that is how Texans choose to hunt then fine but don't bring it up here.

Nemont
 
Tom,

I dont think you're drawing the right conclusions.

The logical explaination is the population of Texas...5 times as many people.

Secondly, its impossible to "manage" Idaho like Texas. The remoteness of the country is one of the biggest problems. Winters are another. Fencing Idaho for game farms would make wildlife migration impossible and destroy native herds. Its not socially acceptable to people that live in the West. The list goes on and on.

By the way, most of the people that live in Idaho dont want Idaho to become another Texas. Thats their right and why they'll probably end up banning elk farm shooter operations there...just like MT did a few years back.

I have a great idea...let Texas have the game farms and keep hunting a free-ranging, non-fenced, public activity elsewhere. That way a hunter has a choice...shoot wild elk in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming...and whatever the game ranchers raise in Texas.
 
Buzz, You have some good logic, like Idaho F&G doesn't want to manage the high fence elk, I agree, but the population part is not right, here's why. Texas had 1.1 million resident hunters, Idaho had 150 thousand, that's a 7.3 fold difference. The point is Texas largely private management, not hunting on the dole of the feds., supports a larger proportion of hunters than expected based on the population, right? Texas' largely private managment attracts twice as many non-resident hunters as Idaho and has less to draw from, right? Do you see that??

Do Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming doctors want to ban high population cities, inflow of outsiders, etc. to manage human diseases? That's incompetence, not good medical practice, get it? I think they've been living off the feds. to much.

I hope it comes out for the good though, people can only do so much, change so much,
 
arg-mouth-tr.gif
 
Tom,

If the population of Idaho was 5 million...do you suppose they'd still only have 150,000 resident hunters?
 
I see what you're thinking, but I'm not taking that as the main explanation of the difference. If they had more residents, they'd have more hunters. If they had any good hunting, or better hunting, or better management, wouldn't they draw more non-resident hunters? There's a little critique back for them when they critique some of Texas hunting. They have 60% public land and they draw less than half the non-residents that Texas does to hunt, doesn't that tell you its not just the population? What's up with that? How about this? That article says they have 120,000 elk. Be liberal, say an elk is as big as 7 deer, then that's like 0.84 million deer. If Idaho was as big as Texas, we'd multiply by 3.2 and get 2.7 million deer. Texas has 4 million whitetail. I'm not sure how many mule deer. Texas has like 2 million hogs, Texas has more javelina than any state. Non-residents can get two for a $45 over the counter liscense. There's more animals per square mile for more hunters to hunt with the Texas management.

Why doesn't Idaho attract more non-residents?
 
PEAX Trekking Poles

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,159
Messages
1,949,439
Members
35,063
Latest member
theghostbull
Back
Top