Wolves in MT blamed for TOO many elk/deer

BuzzH

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2001
Messages
17,352
Location
Laramie, WY
Unbelievable!!! First they kill everything, now they're responsible for too much big-game....good grief!

Oh, and the MTFWP is going to catch hell from a guy in Wyoming over the "either sex" tags being proposed...how does killing bulls in August with a rifle "control" elk numbers????

Trouble in the triangle: Depredation convinces FWP to open new elk season
By BRETT FRENCH
Gazette Outdoor Writer

BRIDGER - Back in 1944, rancher Rudy Hergenrider could ride the range along the base of the Beartooth Mountains all day and see maybe three deer.

"Now they come in by the hundreds all summer long," Hergenrider said. "The deer are getting too thick. And they (the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks) don't let them hunt 'em enough."

Not only have deer populations blossomed in the region, about 100 to 150 head of elk have taken up residence on these farm and ranchlands east of the Beartooth Mountains.


In response to complaints from landowners such as Hergenrider, FWP is proposing the establishment of a new elk hunting season in the area - Hunting District 510's Cottonwood Triangle. The triangle is formed by highways 72 and 310 on the west and east, respectively, and the Wyoming border to the south.

The agency is also proposing to issue 400 additional permits for whitetail does that would be valid in 510 as well as four adjoining districts. The FWP Commission will take final action on the tentative regulations at a meeting today in Helena.


Where did they come from?


Some landowners are blaming the reintroduction of wolves for the increase in elk.

But Shawn Stewart, FWP's wildlife biologist for the area, said the elk migrations to lower elevations were noted before wolves were reintroduced in Yellowstone National Park in 1995.

"Whether or not the wolves are holding the elk down there, I can't answer that," he said. And he can't say that the same movement of elk wouldn't have happened without wolves showing up. He said it's just as likely the elk left their traditional winter range atop the Line Creek Plateau in the Beartooths because the weather was harsh and the forage scarce. Yet elk didn't seem to be pushed lower by overpopulation, he said.

Stewart said the development of agricultural crops along Grove Creek may have had something to do with luring elk from the mountains. The Beartooths feed Grove Creek's headwaters. The stream runs east through Tolman Flat, south of Red Lodge, before emptying into the Clark Fork River.

"For years, that was not an area with good alfalfa or corn crops," Stewart said.

Elk now living in the Cottonwood Triangle weren't the only ones to leave the Line Creek region. Stewart said another portion of the herd that wintered on Line Creek but summered on Bennett Creek, near Deep Lake, also left the area.

"They stayed at low elevations summer and winter in Wyoming," he said.

Two summers ago, Stewart said radio-collared elk crossed the Clark Fork River and summered in alfalfa fields.

"So there are a lot of strange movements going on in that herd," he said. "But there are no real answers to it."


Safety on flatlands


Deer, too, are crowding agricultural lands in the Cottonwood Triangle. Jim Peters, who ranches south of Belfry, said it's easy to understand why wildlife have moved into the area.

"An animal ain't dumb," he said. "They come to the valley where they're safe."

Peters said he doesn't mind feeding a few deer, but when they get on top of haystacks and ruin 10 times what they eat, he gets a bit frustrated.

He estimated the deer eat about $1,500 worth of feed in the winter.

Peters said a solution to the problem may be unreachable.

"We lost our hunters," he said. "The ones who kill the most (deer) are cars."

Peters said although he allows hunters on his ranch, next door to him is the Sunlight Ranch, owned by Sinclair Oil Corp. Sunlight's huge tracts are closed to hunters.

The deer have gotten so used to the presence of ranchers and farmers, and a lack of hunters, that Peters said they have lost all fear of humans.

"When I was young, you had to hunt them," he said. "They didn't stand and look at you."

Stewart said problems with mule deer could begin to ease soon. Their populations tend to rise and fall on 10 year cycles. That cycle is set for a downturn next year. As for whitetail, which mainly live along the Clark Fork River, Stewart said their populations only tend to trend upward. The occasional outbreak of epizootic hemhorragic disease, also known as blue tongue, is one of the few controls nature puts on their population.


Increasing hunter opportunity


In an attempt to relieve some of the problem of deer and elk depredation, FWP is proposing to modify this year's hunting season in HD-510. HD-510's western border runs south from Bridger to the Wyoming border along highways 310 and 72. The majority of its northern border, and all of its eastern border, abuts the Crow Indian Reservation.

For HD-510, an additional 400 antlerless whitetail B tags - 1,600 total - will be offered that are valid not only in 510, but also 502, 520, 560 and 575. The season would also be extended. The holder of one of the 1,600 B tags would be allowed to hunt from Oct. 24 through Jan. 1. Archers would also be eligible for the additional tags as well as any special permits offered.

For elk, it is proposed that the section of HD-510 west of Highway 310 - the Cottonwood Triangle - have a general rifle season for antlerless elk between Sept. 4 and Nov. 28. Four either-sex tags for the area would be valid in the same area - as well as all of HD-502 - from Aug. 15 to Nov. 28.

HD-502's western border is Highway 212 from Red Lodge to Laurel, and Interstate 90 from Laurel to Billings. The eastern border is the Crow Reservation. It's southern border runs from Red Lodge east to Belfry and then abuts the northwest corner of HD-510.

HD-510 has not had an archery season for elk in the past. Proposed for the 2004 season is an either-sex general elk archery license valid in the Cottonwood Triangle from Sept. 4 to Oct. 17.

FWP did not have any elk season specific to HD-510 in the past.

"Now the season is tailored to the 510 problem," Stewart said.


Brett French can be reached at [email protected]. or at 657-1387
 
I didn't really see that anyone in the article was blaming wolves for more deer or elk, only for pushing them to the relative safety of the farm lands in the valleys as opposed to the "wolf infested" mountains and highland meadows. Does this mean less on public land and forests, which is usually the higher country, and more on private land? That would be another windfall for the ranchers and farmers, who can charge for access to hunt. The guy complaining about the deer eating $1500 worth of feed will soon be charging 10 guys $2500 each to hunt. :rolleyes:
 
I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but as I recall elk were originally lowland animals anyway--foothills and such. They were pushed to the higher elevations by hunting pressure during the market hunting days. If so, they're just returning to where they should have been to begin with. :confused:
 
I've heard of similar problems in the Paradise Valley. The elk are afraid to enter the timber when the wolves are present and are now spending a lot more time in the hayfields. A couple of hundred condo units should solve that problem.

Paul
 
There are alternatives to the Condo's...check this out...something we need more of. It seems conservation easements are starting to catch on.

Gallatin County Ranchland Protected (MT)


From Trust for Public Land
Tuesday, February 10, 2004

BOZEMAN, MONTANA - 2/10/04 - The Trust for Public Land (TPL), together with the Gallatin Valley Land Trust (GVLT), the Gallatin County Open Lands Board and the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), announced today that they have completed a major conservation easement purchase, which will protect 1,572 acres of farm and ranchland in the heart of the Gallatin Valley. The project is the largest conservation easement purchase ever funded in Montana through the federal Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program.

The transaction places a conservation easement on 1,572 acres of highly visible farm and ranchland at the base of the Horseshoe Hills, north of Belgrade. The easement, which has been appraised at $2,170,000, is being purchased for a bargain price of $1,075,000. Funding for the purchase includes $437,500 from the Gallatin County Open Space Program, $537,500 from the federal Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program and $100,000 from the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation as part of its Greater Yellowstone Land Protection Initiative. The conservation easement, which significantly limits the future development potential of the property while allowing traditional farming and ranching activities to continue, will be held by the Gallatin Valley Land Trust for long-term monitoring and stewardship.

Property owner Wallace Brownell said that he is pleased with his family's decision to sell the easement. "Our family loves this land and the open space that it offers. We already have subdivisions on three sides of our ranch. The conservation easement that we are selling to the County will guarantee that the same thing does not happen here. It will also conserve valuable wildlife habitat and an important viewshed that can be seen from downtown Bozeman and many other parts of the County."

Three years ago, voters in fast-growing Gallatin County passed a $10 million bond to protect critical farm and ranchland, wildlife habitat and open space. The bond measure, which received almost 60% of the vote, is being closely watched throughout the region and, if successful, could serve as a model that other communities could copy to protect those landscapes that they care about.

As Gallatin County Commissioner Bill Murdock put it, "this project is another good example of what we had in mind when we put the bond on the ballot three years ago. It conserves important agricultural, wildlife and scenic values and builds on the investment that we made last year when the County purchased a conservation easement on the Skinner Ranch next door."

Dave White, State Conservationist for the NRCS, praised the easement purchase, saying that his agency was thrilled to be part of the deal. "It's great that the NRCS is able to help Gallatin County protect its agricultural heritage and ensure that its ranching families are able to stay on the land. The funding that we are able to contribute through the Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program is an important stimulant for this kind of conservation throughout Montana."

Michael Harris, Gallatin County Open Land Coordinator, praised the work of TPL, the NRCS and the Brownell family. As he put it, "this is exactly the type of proactive and voluntary-based conservation project that the Open Lands Program looks for."

According to Alex Diekmann, TPL's local project manager, "the Brownell Ranch easement purchase is a good example of what Purchase of Development Rights programs are all about. They are a voluntary and incentive-based approach to protecting both the economic productivity and ecological welfare of working lands and to prevent them from being lost to sprawl. TPL is proud to have worked so closely with GVLT, the NRCS and the Gallatin County Open Land Board and is hoping that this partnership will lead to many more successful projects."

Jim Madden, Lands Conservation Coordinator for GVLT, added: "The Brownells have been farming and ranching in the Gallatin Valley for four generations. GVLT is pleased to be able to assist the Brownell family in meeting its goal of keeping the Brownell Ranch available for agriculture for future generations."

The Trust for Public Land, a national nonprofit organization, conserves land for people to improve the quality of life in communities and to protect our natural and historic resources for future generations. Since 1972, TPL has protected over 1.5 million acres nationwide with a value of more than $2 billion. Projects in Montana include protection of Garnet Ghost Town, Lindbergh Lake, the Swan River Valley, Thompson and Fisher River Valleys, waterfowl habitat at the Blasdel National Wildlife Refuge and National Forest lands north of Yellowstone National Park.

GVLT is a non-profit membership organization dedicated to the conservation of open space, agricultural land, wildlife habitat and the creation of public trails in southwestern Montana. Since 1990, GVLT has partnered with 43 families, family trusts and corporations to protect over 10,000 acres in Gallatin, Park, Madison and Jefferson counties through its conservation easement program. These protected areas include working farms and ranches, scenic views, critical wildlife habitat and urban open space. GVLT also has an active community trails program and is working with volunteers and local organizations to build the twenty-four mile "Main Street to the Mountains" trail system, which will one day connect downtown Bozeman with the Bridger Mountains to the north and the Hyalite Mountains to the south.
 
IMO, conservation easements are what we need more of and the main reason I support RMEF and TNC as they are great at getting these deals done. Sounds like these orgs are doing something very similar on a more local scale, good for them!

It's all about habitat!
 
I really like that the Brownell's were able to make a sizable bundle off their land and still get to live on it... At least it won't get developed. Pretty smart if you ask me!

Bozeman folk make me laugh whenever you talk to any of them about environmental issues. They always seam to turn the blind eye to the development that has happened in the last 15 years there. I remember a heated editorial in the Chronicle about four years ago. One side wanted to stop the development (since they had already moved in from who knows where and built their dream home along the gallatin river) and the other side wanted to develope a big farm right out side of town. I just can't undersand Hypocrites.

Living on the east cost and developing property for a living, I have seen things that I hope to never see out west.

How do you save private property from being developed? Its pretty hard to do. Envronmental concerns really don't matter all that much, for example here: storm water must be "pre treated" before it is released into a stream so that the nitrates don't reach the Chesapeake and cause major alge blooms killing basically everything... In therory it sounds good but in actual pracitce its just a pimple on the ass of a MUCH bigger problem... too many damn people...

I don't see a problem with development as long as its properly planded out. animals can coexist within low density housing developements and actually thrive! Development in the west should be limited to a bare minimum of 40 acres per home and 60 would be better. Or to extream density... 4-5 houses per acre... Minimize the impact. The biggest threat is the 5-15 acre ranchets... they are forever $*)Q!#@$ up the entire west. I like what CO has done in some countys if not all, 40 acres bare minimum for housing development with out public sew and water (inside city limits, where housing is generall at the most 1 house per acre)

If the people want to sell their land to conservation easements then they should be allowed to live on it but as soon as that family no longer wants it or all the imediate members die the property should be truned over to the public. The only way we will ever stop development is to totaly remove people from the land. If these people putting their land in conservation easements really cared then they would have no problem doing this, hell if they really cared they would turn it over to the state for nothing.

Steven Segal got right around his conservation easement and built a gynormous house right at the mouth of one of the biggest creeks on the Sun Ranch in Southwest MT. This thing is the biggest frickn eyesore I have ever seen, miles of nothing and then right in one of the prettiest places sits a 9000 squarefoot mansion. He got around his easement and so can everyone eles. Family members can build on the property to a certain extent, so whats to stop the next owner from building his home and so on and so on... the next thing you know you have 10 houses on a peice of property that started with one

Developemt is impossible to stop especailly right now, our economy is based on it!
 
Bambistew is right. Our entire economy is dependent on growth. Does anybody know enough about economics to know why it has to be that way? I don't see any end to development in the west. As long as the human population continues to increase there is no way to stop it. Actually, I do have some ideas, but they wouldn't be popular. First thing would be to end immigration, legal and illegal. Second thing would be to change the tax system so people are not rewarded for having children. But even if we got the human population stabilized in this country, what is going to happen to the economy without growth? I imagine there would be a lot of people without jobs. There's just no good answer I guess.
 
Yep, you're not going to be stopping development. The best thing we can do is try to protect the most important habitat that's still available. In any case, the continued development of the West is going to ultimately result in reduced hunting opportunity. I think the anti-wolf crowd would be much better served to focus their efforts on loss of habitat. It's going to affect game populations more than wolves ever will.

Oak
 
Does economic growth have to correspond with population growth?? I know there are a few European countries experiencing that now and I haven't heard of them being too negatively impacted economically. :confused:

I agree with CO in that we have to prioritize and protect the most important places first. A small (relatively) amount of high quality habitat would support more game than a large amount of crap!

All in all, curb immigration (all types) and for the betterment of the future have two kids (2.2 kids/couple is needed for stable human pop.) or less!!!! This should solve a LOT of problems IMO.

Bambistew- I'd be interested if there's been any studies on the impact to animals of 40ac/house developments? I know a guy in CO that has 40ac and has plenty of mulies and the occasional elk around his house.
 
Does economic growth have to correspond with population growth?
I wondered the same thing. We've got plenty of population in this area; the problem is that we don't have enough decent jobs to keep them all employed.

I think, though, that population growth is a RESULT of economic growth, because as an area starts to improve economically people move there to benefit. And employers tend to build where there's a large, willing population to staff the facility. And they tend to build where they get the best "package," which will always come from the larger cities with more money to spend. So it seems you can't have one without the other.

Regarding 40 acres per house, I think you'd find that things are great as long as there was someplace larger for them to go, but if the entire area were taken with 40 acres and houses, things would start to decline--not enough refuge. Might be wrong though.
 
Maybe if there was no population growth, the need for more schools, teachers, jails, welfare, etc. would decrease and our taxes would go down. People could live on less, and therefore people could work less...we could end up like some European countries with less hours worked per week and 2 to 3 months of vacation per year, and more time to hunt :D
 
DG- In response to your reply on 40ac/house, I think in the west or with animals with large home ranges your requirements of a larger, local refuge would be needed. But, I'm thinking whitetails could do pretty well with 40ac/house, especially if a few of them provided cover.
 
Nah, whitetails would become Public Enemy Number 1 when they started grazing yuppie flower & vegetable gardens and when they started accidentally running into the bumpers of Lexuses and Tahoes. ;) :D Seriously, I believe they'd survive very well habitat-speaking, but socially it might be another matter.
 
Agreed! Hey, is that a slam at me because I have a Lexus???? ;) FYI, it was 'inherited' so to speak when got married.
 
Lot's of tough issues with land and future development, particularly in the West. With a large number of baby boomers getting set to retire, the Mountain West aint seen nothing yet. People are going to come, so we may as well plan accordingly for it. To think otherwise is just putting your head in the sand.

Questions for Buzz and some extent the rest of you. Do you donate finnacially, with your time, or both to organizations that work to obtain conservation easements? Give some examples. Do you have a plan to offset future loss in property taxes (which go to fund schools and teachers who some believe underpaid) when properties are placed into conservation easements? Do you think that if the public had more respect for the land owners and their way of life, that more land owners would do the right thing with the long term use of their land?

It seems to me, that everyone here would like everyone but themselves to bare the cost to preserve "all the special places" for their personal benefit (hunting). We want to keep places like the Front and ANWR off limits to energy production for our own selfish reasons, and could give a rats rump if it affects other people negatively. Then we're pissed because these people don't give a rats rump about our special interests.

Personally, I believe that if people would spend more time doing, and less time bitching and moaning, and fighting, we could resolve a lot of these problems.

So what have each of YOU done in the past, and what else can YOU do to help solve these issues?

Paul
 
Paul- I donate financially to RMEF and volunteer time/effort to TNC. I will do more in the future, but I've been on a limited budget for the last 2.5yrs. I don't have a plan to offset property tax loss, that is up to the Co/state folks. Funding of public schools/teachers is a problem, but my way of solving that for my kids is to send them to private schools. I feel one gets much more bang for the buck and are better prepared for their future this way. I think the respect the general public shows landowners is a part of the problem, but the almighty $$$$ is the driving force. Who can blame a guy for trading a 60-80hr/week job making middle-class (maybe) income for selling his land to be relatively upper class and not have to do near as much work?? It's those that really care for the land or who are financially stable that the conservation easements are really for.

Personally, I believe that if people would spend more time doing, and less time bitching and moaning, and fighting, we could resolve a lot of these problems.
I agree totally and has a lot to do with my chosen profession.
 
Pointer,

I know you put your money where your mouth is and plan to do even more when you are better off finacially to do so. I also see that you understand that all these issues are complex and there are no easy answers. My post was mostly directed towards Buzz if you could not tell.

I know of at least one hunting/sportsmen organization that Buzz has bad mouthed that has funded the GVLT to help facilitate the conservation easments in that area to protect critacal habitat from being developed.

So I'll ask again. Buzz, what have you personally done to help finance conservation easements?

Paul
 
Paul,

I've done some stuff like pointer support financially the TNC, MDF, RMEF.

I also served as a board member for the Wetlands Protection Advisory Council in Montana (for the MTFWP) before I moved to Wyoming. Our council was pretty heavy into purchasing or gaining conservation easements in critical wetlands and riparian areas. We worked in cooperation with groups like pheasants forever, ducks unlimited, many local sportsmens groups, and so on. We would either solicite help for funding or match funds on projects and areas we deemed as good deals for conservation. The money we had available was from the state of Montana duck stamp sales. I believe the council did a great job as we were still working on a previous years budget and had funded every proposed project for conservation. We accomplished this by being thrifty and finding matching funds through all types of sources. Oh, and by the way, all my time and effort was donated, volunteer work. We funded lots of projects and lots of conservation easements throughout Montana.

Other than that, not much, and I agree I should do more.
 
Back
Top