Wyoming GFD or the Governor

[Hammsolo]

I just read this article. What are the facts? What’s your opinion? Who should make those decisions? A governor with no science background? A group of scientists? Hmmmm Should the cattle industry be directly involved? Should a board of hunters be involved then? My hair is standing on end. What is our priority? Where is our boundary line?
WyoGFD vs Gov

 

[WapitiBob]

Up here, when the ranchers go to the Legislature it's because they're tired of not getting their way with the Game Dept. Once it gets thru the Legislature it is nearly impossible to change as well, something they are quite aware of. Our Elk Damage program was one they pushed thru the Legislature. The Game dept has to "manage" it but has no authority to change any of it.

 

[Hammsolo]

Up here, when the ranchers go to the Legislature it's because they're tired of not getting their way with the Game Dept. Once it gets thru the Legislature it is nearly impossible to change as well, something they are quite aware of. Our Elk Damage program was one they pushed thru the Legislature. The Game dept has to "manage" it but has no authority to change any of it.

That was my guess. I live in Spokane, WA and the beef industry has way too much power out here. Ranchers are allowed to overgraze public land for a few cents. Lobbyists.... money is more powerful than science...

 

[BuzzH]

Tough issue this one...and picking the winners and losers will not be easy.

On the one hand, there is a risk to increase disease transmission. No question that feeding wildlife has never been a good solution to their survival. Fair to note, elk always congregate even where feeding programs don't exist. To single out the feed grounds seems a bit unfair.

On the other hand, closing feed grounds will be pretty tough on the elk and the public will be looking at a lot fewer elk in the NW part of Wyoming.

The supplemental feeding has been going on since 1912, ending it will cause a lot of issues. Those elk will attempt to find places for food on surrounding private increasing damage to hayfields, haystacks, etc. If they cant find alternative feed, the population will take a hit.

Fewer elk there, will lead to more LQ areas, increased general hunting pressure elsewhere, less tourism to view elk, photograph elk, etc. etc. etc.

This is one of the truly no-win situations, where, IMO, its just not as simple at this point to just "follow the science" as Connie Wilbert with the Sierra Club thinks.

It's one thing to follow the science BEFORE starting a supplemental feeding program for elk, its another to ask to follow it 109 years AFTER you started feeding them.

I would not want to have to make the decision on how to handle this.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

@BuzzH nailed it. Shit sandwich, eat if from the left or the right, it still tastes like shit.

 

[rwc101]

Definitely a lose-lose whatever the decision. I think it's lose-lose-lose when the decision gets handed to the governor, but I'm no expert. Curiously few HMAs and WIAs in the affected areas though.

 

[Hammsolo]

Tough issue this one...and picking the winners and losers will not be easy.

On the one hand, there is a risk to increase disease transmission. No question that feeding wildlife has never been a good solution to their survival. Fair to note, elk always congregate even where feeding programs don't exist. To single out the feed grounds seems a bit unfair.

On the other hand, closing feed grounds will be pretty tough on the elk and the public will be looking at a lot fewer elk in the NW part of Wyoming.

The supplemental feeding has been going on since 1912, ending it will cause a lot of issues. Those elk will attempt to find places for food on surrounding private increasing damage to hayfields, haystacks, etc. If they cant find alternative feed, the population will take a hit.

Fewer elk there, will lead to more LQ areas, increased general hunting pressure elsewhere, less tourism to view elk, photograph elk, etc. etc. etc.

This is one of the truly no-win situations, where, IMO, its just not as simple at this point to just "follow the science" as Connie Wilbert with the Sierra Club thinks.

It's one thing to follow the science BEFORE starting a supplemental feeding program for elk, its another to ask to follow it 109 years AFTER you started feeding them.

I would not want to have to make the decision on how to handle this.

I hear you. I haven’t read what she’s said. We need to follow the science of today. If we as conservationist hunters stay quiet we accept the out come. We need a voice at the table. This can’t be the same old follow the money program built by lobbyists.

 

[Hammsolo]

@BuzzH nailed it. Shit sandwich, eat if from the left or the right, it still tastes like shit.

Maybe it’s time to make fertilizer.

 

[BuzzH]

I hear you. I haven’t read what she’s said. We need to follow the science of today. If we as conservationist hunters stay quiet we accept the out come. We need a voice at the table. This can’t be the same old follow the money program built by lobbyists.

I also hear you as well, but flipping a 180 on 109 years of supplemental feeding is going to come at a huge price to the elk and others...and it will be messy for a long time.

Like it or not, on just about every wildlife issue, there is politics involved, frustrates me too, but its reality.

 

[Hammsolo]

I also hear you as well, but flipping a 180 on 109 years of supplemental feeding is going to come at a huge price to the elk and others...and it will be messy for a long time.

Like it or not, on just about every wildlife issue, there is politics involved, frustrates me too, but its reality.

The science as a whole does not say to just stop feeding. The feeding is happening for a reason as you know. Human population intrusion. We have taken their wintering grounds. We humans have inserted ourselves into that system, and must accept that. Would we just cut out another food source? No. The danger is listening to one group, especially the noisiest one. Coca Cola and other companies construed research for years to bolster sales. You’re so right politics is part of the system. How much a part is the question?

 

[Pucky Freak]

The feedgrounds will eventually be phased out/ transitioned out, or worse, abruptly stopped. It’s an unpopular hot potato and I seriously doubt WG&F wants to be the “bad guy” in a game of political football that has 8 teams and 10 sets of rules. It has parallels to the political pressure put on the commission regarding One Thing, whereas the legislature should really have been the body to end it.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

In regards to who should be in charge of the answer, I would not lean towards putting that decision I the hands of the Governor. Regardless of who is Governor.

In regards to what should be done with the Feedgrounds, Buzz is correct it is not an easy answer. However, I am far more skeptical of the belief that we need to stop supplemental feeding because it will lead to disease and mass die offs than I am the thought that stopping feeding will lead to starvation and increased crop damage and therefore lower landowner tolerance. In my mind the later is a virtual certainty. The former has not shown itself to be a significant problem in the over 100 year history of the feedgrounds.

Whenever suggested changes are brought forth in how Wyo should manage its elk herds my first thought is why? Elk is damn near the only positive for Wyoming over the last 40 years. Do we have more elk than we did 40 years ago? Yes. Do we have more MD, Antelope, Sheep, moose? No. Why do we keep trying to come up with ways to improve on what is already a huge success.

I can see both sides of this but one side results in a maybe, while the other results in a given. At least in my mind.

 

[SAJ-99]

Tough issue this one...and picking the winners and losers will not be easy.

On the one hand, there is a risk to increase disease transmission. No question that feeding wildlife has never been a good solution to their survival. Fair to note, elk always congregate even where feeding programs don't exist. To single out the feed grounds seems a bit unfair.

On the other hand, closing feed grounds will be pretty tough on the elk and the public will be looking at a lot fewer elk in the NW part of Wyoming.

The supplemental feeding has been going on since 1912, ending it will cause a lot of issues. Those elk will attempt to find places for food on surrounding private increasing damage to hayfields, haystacks, etc. If they cant find alternative feed, the population will take a hit.

Fewer elk there, will lead to more LQ areas, increased general hunting pressure elsewhere, less tourism to view elk, photograph elk, etc. etc. etc.

This is one of the truly no-win situations, where, IMO, its just not as simple at this point to just "follow the science" as Connie Wilbert with the Sierra Club thinks.

It's one thing to follow the science BEFORE starting a supplemental feeding program for elk, its another to ask to follow it 109 years AFTER you started feeding them.

I would not want to have to make the decision on how to handle this.

I agree. The feed grounds were created to keep elk from getting on Private ranches and risk spreading brucellosis. Now they want to potentially close them over concerns of CWD? No-win situation here. Like the previous post stated- elk congregate this time of year. You are not going to stop that.

 

[appaloosa]

In regards to who should be in charge of the answer, I would not lean towards putting that decision I the hands of the Governor. Regardless of who is Governor.

In regards to what should be done with the Feedgrounds, Buzz is correct it is not an easy answer. However, I am far more skeptical of the belief that we need to stop supplemental feeding because it will lead to disease and mass die offs than I am the thought that stopping feeding will lead to starvation and increased crop damage and therefore lower landowner tolerance. In my mind the later is a virtual certainty. The former has not shown itself to be a significant problem in the over 100 year history of the feedgrounds.

Whenever suggested changes are brought forth in how Wyo should manage its elk herds my first thought is why? Elk is damn near the only positive for Wyoming over the last 40 years. Do we have more elk than we did 40 years ago? Yes. Do we have more MD, Antelope, Sheep, moose? No. Why do we keep trying to come up with ways to improve on what is already a huge success.

I can see both sides of this but one side results in a maybe, while the other results in a given. At least in my mind.

Brucellosis prevelance is 10x higher in feedground elk compared to free-ranging elk. What more evidence do you need to suggest how infectious diseases behave in these conditions? CWD will rip through feedgrounds like covid through a nursing home.
There is no maybe in my mind, doing nothing will be catastrophic. Unfortunately, pulling the plug will be to. I think there are solutions, but continuing to sweep the dust under the rug is irresponsible IMO.

 

[3855WIN]

Are the elk at the feed grounds actually elk that anyone hunts during the fall or are they all elk from the National Parks?

 

[Mallardsx2]

I feel bad for the Elk because without the supplemental feeding, I fear there will be enough natural food for the elk to eat to survive the winter. Combine this with the way "we" utilize the lands surrounding these feed grounds (Cattle graze them off all summer, housing being built, fences, ect ect.) and its really not in their favor. These elk have become creatures of habit relying on this feed for the last 100 years.

Not a good situation. Either way, I dont have any say in it but it is a double edged sword for sure.

They used to have turkey feeding programs all over the mountains of PA back in the day (60,s 70's, 80's) when they had their big stocking programs. I remember seeing the corn feeders when I was young. They are almost all gone now just some remnants here and there of the old feeders. They ended the feeding program. Turkeys eventually stopped relying on them and moved to their natural patterns. But this isnt really comparing animals to animals.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

Are the elk at the feed grounds actually elk that anyone hunts during the fall or are they all elk from the National Parks?

I hunt elk that spend time on feedgrounds every year.

 

[ccc23454]

I hate change with anything, 109 years why change now... ya it may spread disease but i got news unless your going to return private land to public wintering range you have to feed. I believe cattle and grazing rights have to be addressed as part solution and we know how ranchers love that topic. If you cut them off they still will group up on private, become problems then in a weaker state from working even harder to replace needed calories and may become even more likely to die than currently.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

There is no maybe in my mind, doing nothing will be catastrophic. Unfortunately, pulling the plug will be to. I think there are solutions, but continuing to sweep the dust under the rug is irresponsible IMO.

We'll see.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I remember when Matt Teeters tried to shut down the feedgrounds in WY. He was the grandson of a legacy legislative family, super conservative & his grandfather would write op-eds with titles like "How Cows Saved the West."

He got taken out that next cycle by the stockgrowers.

I hate change with anything, 109 years why change now... ya it may spread disease but i got news unless your going to return private land to public wintering range you have to feed. I believe cattle and grazing rights have to be addressed as part solution and we know how ranchers love that topic. If you cut them off they still will group up on private, become problems then in a weaker state from working even harder to replace needed calories and may become even more likely to die than currently

Wyoming's problems with winter range and elk are a direct result of this mentality. WY has disallowed the G&F from owning more land that could be used as winter range and focused on a short term solution for 110 years that breeds disease and inflated herds based on carrying capacity, while also carving up quality winter range on public land for O&G development.

Those feed grounds also cause massive problems in other states, thanks to Brucellosis. Enough data has been put forward over the years to show that Brucellosis seroprevalance increases thanks to feed grounds & unnatural concentrations of elk (bison in the park). Disallowing the dispersement of those animals, whether Yellowstone bison or feed ground elk, means higher seroprevalance rates, and that leads to issues like Test & Slaughter in MT, transferable tags, politically motivated elk mgt, etc.

Yeah, it's complicated, but it's not complicated because there aren't better alternatives. It's complicated because of politics & Wyopming refusing to allow their G&F to find better solutions. This bill furthers that dynamic.