Elk Game Ranching in Montana

[katqanna]

6 foot tall fences, elk and private hunting parties? I dont know what they call that here in Montana, but back in Texas, we called it "Game Ranching".

After dealing with the worst of this shoulder injury, the necessary new hard drive to deal with the audio and video files, and the OS and web software updates, I have finally pushed through the pain thing and gotten the Park County Elk Brucellosis "Working Group" audio files edited, transcribed, and documented so y'all can see what they have been up to.

Elk Brucellosis Park Co. "Working Group"

The Park Co. ranchers have submitted to the FWP Commissioners, for approval at this February 13, 2013 meeting. FWP Helena, has of course, recommended these modifications to the already livestock management driven and subsidizing Proposed Recommendations.

There are proposed elk HD changes for this area supported by this group, on their private lands; wildlife prohibitive tall fencing by the miles, paid for with sportsmens dollars and again, no public hunter access required; extended kill permit and Elk Management Removal dates to May 15, including on DNRC public lands that they lease. They had objections to the DSA max quota of 250 Elk Management Removals.

This isnt about preventing the 0.00024% chance that a Montana cattle could possibly contract brucellosis from an elk, this is about depopulating, removing a forage competition ungulate from the landscape, sportsmens dollars subsidizing their agriculture and game ranching.

They even had a 3rd recommendation to submit, do away with the Hunt Roster (not like they used it this last season, which is why they have never provided my requested information in my Public Information Request) “Use only Park County hunters for the EMR's (Elk Management Removals) and the kill permits. This is a local work plan, therefore utilizing local hunters would be a way to create relationships between hunters and landowners. These relationships could possibly result in the creation of additional hunting opportunities for future hunting seasons.”

Druska Kinkie (rancher and chair of the Upper Yellowstone Watershed Basin working group) states, “Concentrating on local hunters for these EMR's would be helpful. Side comments from the other members supported this idea.

1:53:54 (from the Jan. 28th meeting) – Dr. Mark Albrecht, “The other comment you might hear is if you are only going to use Park County hunters, then why would you use sportsmens dollars from anybody who doesnt reside in Park County for the large scale? You are going to create some conflict that maybe you dont want.”

FWP Quentin Kujala mentions that Druska Kinkie has pointed out that landowners with kill permits, already have the ability to identify designees. Each Kill Permit allows 5 kills. They vote and Due to Mark's comment, Recommendation 3 receives no votes.

This does not have to be an "us against them" situation. We can have a healthy livestock industry and wildlife managed wildlife in Montana, for the benefit of a stronger, prosperous Montana. But they are manipulating the system for special interests and I'm pushing back. I cant even begin to list here all the reasons why this Helena driven program is so messed up. It has taken me 4 days to get it all compiled on a number of web pages. So here it is. I havent even had time to eat today. So before I compose the Park Co. and DSA Science and Stats page, so you can see that all this is being done in an area in a 10 year steady elk decline and under objective, I am going to eat.

 

[Big Fin]

To summarize, this local working group is bringing to the FWP Commission, their two following recommendations at the February 13th Commission meeting.

1. Huge increases in fencing, including very high fences that will impact migratory routes. And, it would be paid for with hunter license dollars.

2. Extend the date for which pregnant cow elk can be killed (I am not keen on the sanitized term of Elk Management Removals, so I use the word "Kill") to May 15th. If I understand my biology, that is about three weeks prior to calving.

The Commission with be presented these recommendations from this local group. I believe they are required to take public comment at the March Commission meeting, before acting on that proposal. If I am wrong, I hope someone will correct me.

Here is how you can reach the Commissioners and give them your thoughts on this proposal that will be provided to them for consideration. Email ---------> [email protected]

 

[Nameless Range]

I found this in the Jefferson County Montana Commission Meeting minutes from Dec 2013. Where commissioner Wortman said "they need to do something" to stop the spread of Brucellosis infected elk , I wondered what that was. Then I found this thread. This isn't the first time I've noticed that my local commissioners seem to view Montana FWP as elk-huggin hippies hell-bent on destroying cows, mining and 'murica.

COMMISSION REPORTS
Commissioner Wortman stated that there were a couple things that really stood out to him. One
of those is brucellosis in the elk population. In the early 90s under 2% of the elk tested positive
for brucellosis and now around 18% test positive and it is spreading out from Yellowstone. They
are doing a lot of research and testing and he tried to stress that they need to do something to stop
the spread before it devastates the cattle industry in Montana. One other thing that everyone
made a big point of is the influence of environmental groups. FWP swears that they are not
controlled by environmental organizations, but by their own documents, such as the non-game
report, shows that they have an outside advisory committee made up of members from
environmental organizations and state agencies - no commissioners, landowners, recreationists,
loggers, miners, etc. It was the same thing with the recently published grizzly plan. He thinks
that FWP has a big thing to overcome.

 

[Bambistew]

I started a rumor that the cattle industry was behind the wolf reintroduction in order to reduce the brucellosis threat.

 

[HSi-ESi]

Comments sent in. Thanks for letting us know.

The fencing is tough - private landowners can build what they want - but us paying for it is crazy. The extension of the cow killing is even worse. Elk calves have enough trouble in the GYA without us taking out even more of them.

I hope these get shot down quickly.

 

[katqanna]

Nameless, 2 of the Park Commissioners are ranchers and part of this group, Marty Malone and Jim Durgan. They have both been outspoken against the wildlife. When I went to one of the commission meetings, Malone and Durgan went on majorly about the diseased wildlife and predators, the Yellowstone National Park, hating on FWP in general, etc. I just went to listen about the letter they were proposing, but after several of the comments, I had to stand up and state the facts to refute the rancher myths. They want the elk and bison killed off. This was part of this last legislative push to have county commissioner authority over wildlife issues.

Even with some of the group aware that I was recording, modifying their comments to be more politically correct, so to speak, Jim Durgan stated, , “Thats exactly why I said private property. Thats my property. I agree very much what Justin said. If hes got a pivot, he doesnt need those elk down there. Shoot them at any time, really.”

When I was reading through the Montana Elk Statewide Management Plan late summer, I saw some game damage charts that caught my eye. So I contacted out FWP office and requested the last 6 years of game damage for Region 3 and specifically Park County. Here is the chart, I have highlighted Park County/elk. The reason I chose these dates is that 2007 was the year they knew genetically the wildlife brucellosis was from the elk genotype, not the bison. The end date is the last year before this bloody working group program got started in 2013. As you can see, in 6 years Park Co. had 5 elk complaints. 2007 - 1, 2008 - 3, 2010 - 1. The last 2 years there were none. So if elk are such a horrific problem there, why did the ranchers not contact FWP, file complaints under game damage and utilize public hunter access to mediate some of this conflict?

In Nov. 2012, when this elk brucellosis draft Proposed Recommendations was going through, they already had a rancher put in a request under this program, with no public hunter access. Then in Jan, days before the Proposed Recommendations were voted on the 10th, 4 Paradise Valley ranchers put in dispersal hunt requests for their ranches, again, with no public hunter access and several more stack fencing requests. The Durgans wanted more than the 2000.00 saying they had larger stacks. Then the Kinkies wanted kill permits. All of this is funded by FWP sportsmens dollars, all of this with out public hunter access and all outside of legally mandated game damage. For what? A 0.00024% chance of elk transmission risk? If there really was an elk problem before, why does it not show up in the previous years game damage complaints? Years when they already knew that elk were the transmitters of the brucellosis, not the bison? Whats worse, is not all the cases of brucellosis in cattloe, since 2008 when they have been tracking the gentypes, have been from elk. Papers published on the subject showed cattle vaccine blooms and cattle brucellosis cases, not just elk (they were the same genetic biovar, Biovar 1). I had to FOIA test results. And this is not just limited to MT, it has occurred in the WY and ID outbreaks, as well.

On an added note, take a look at this Region 3 Block Management Map. Notice that Park Co., far right side, bottom, HWY 89, there is only one BM participant, way up near Livingston and it is not one of these ranchers. The whole area following HWY 89 south is empty of BM participants, in an area supposedly having elk problems that public hunters could help out with. Now notice the MT Outfitter Leasing Private Lands Map (I blew up the Park Co, section), follow HWY 89 south. Funny thing that, not quite so empty this time.

Private land owners can do as they like, lease to outfitters, put up tall fencing, but if you are going to complain to FWP about a tiny disease threat, by the MTDOL's standards and statements (unless Marty Zaluski is lying to the rest of the Untied States and the academic papers), and demand FWP actions paid for with sportmens dollars and no public hunter access, then I have issue with that.

On top of this, that much fencing, that high, while they may be intending on fencing elk out during certain times, I cannot help but wonder what will be going on during hunting season. In addition, this is going to restrict elk and other migratory patterns. I have already had one couple from Paradise Valley, hearing their ranching neighbor boast that they were getting all this fencing paid for with our dollars, object to this situation. They want the elk, they dont want them blocked, so they are looking at an attorney. I have also received a call from another landowner. If other residents look to sue, or conservation groups concerned with the grizzly, for instance, is FWP, as a result of paying for this fencing, going to be involved in these suits, spending more of sportsmens dollars on litigation?

Then there is the factor that this area is under objective. I need to get those documents uploaded now that I am back home. This whole program is a debacle.

 

[Nameless Range]

Thanks Kat, that is crazy

 

[katqanna]

Where's The Wildlife Management Science?
I got most of the documents uploaded to the bottom part of this Elk watershed group page. I got a call last night from a concerned sporting group that was long, so I didnt get a chance to finish the map last night that goes with the 2013 elk winter counts chart. I will have to upload that when I get back from the commission meeting this afternoon.

There are a number of documents with wildlife biologists overviews and concerns on the elk in this area, in addition to documents I requested. I just remembered another batch in an email folder I will have to go through when I get back. This should at least give anyone an overview of the decline in this southwestern, DSA area in Region 3.

 

[Big Foot]

Message sent to commission. Thanks Fin and Kat for the update on this matter.

 

[shoots-straight]

Kat, you did sportsman a great service today. I'm grateful for the time and effort you put forth on this. All sportsman in the state should make comments concerning this by the meeting in April. The comment was opened up to the public until then.

 

[idahohuntr]

Extend the date for which pregnant cow elk can be killed (I am not keen on the sanitized term of Elk Management Removals, so I use the word "Kill") to May 15th. If I understand my biology, that is about three weeks prior to calving.

I am not familiar with this specific issue...but I just cringe when I read something like "pregnant cow elk can be killed". I am not disputing anything about whether it is (or is not) a sound biological practice to kill cows that late or whether its a good/bad thing for the average DIY hunters as it relates to this issue...but injecting phrases about killing pregnant cow elk seems to play well into the hands of the anti's and I'm not sure that is a road we hunters want to travel. I have read other folks who for whatever reason oppose a late cow hunt inject the term "kill pregnant cow elk" and I cringe at those too. By all means voice your concern with whether such harvest is supported biologically or what impacts it might have on future hunting opportunity...but when folks use the term "pregnant", even though it is accurate, it seems to anthropomorphize the issue. I would also suggest when folks inject the term pregnant to evoke opposition to a particular management issue, how can they really support any mid to late season hunts for elk or deer? Maybe some don't?? Anyways, sorry to go a little off topic, just something I have had concerns about in other discussions.

 

[katqanna]

Thanks Shoots. While, yet again, disappointed that they adopted the recommendations, at least sportsmen have till March 21st to make public comments. On a good note, Commissioner Matthew Tourtlotte expressed concerns over these recommendations.
My letter to the Commissioners.

Hopefully, the audio is launched soon so that y'all can hear what was presented and the public comments.

Here are some of my concerns. In FWP Quentin Kujula's review presentation of what has been transpiring, he correctly referred to this "working group" as the Upper Yellowstone Watershed Basin working group. They are and have always been, the UYWB group, which rancher Druska Kinkie chairs, not a FWP local working group, representing the multi stakeholder process that was advocated by the Statewide Elk Brucellosis Working Group. He has consistently referred to them as the watershed group.

FWP Quentin Kujula and Druska Kinkie (I'm not going to pussy foot around this and be politically diplomatic) lied when they stated there were no dollar amounts discussed. Rep. Alan Redfield brought up in the Dec. 18th and Jan 28th meetings that his 6 foot high, five wife, 9000 volt fence cost $5000.00 a mile. The MSU fencing rep also stated at both of those meetings that they had fencing modifications designs that could be added to existing fencing, that were 100% elk proof, the material cost alone was $1500.00 a mile. Money and miles was discussed, as well as gates, cant forget the free gates.

Druska Kinkie, the rancher, also mentioned that the elk used to spend time on Dome Mountain Wildlife Management Area and do not spend as much time there now. What she neglected to mention, is that that Kinkies lease a portion of the Dome Mountain WMA for haying, the managing of which, could very well be unsettling the elk off the Dome Mountain WMA with the haying activities. I still have not received all my requested documents on the Dome Mountain WMA that I requested.

I, once again, pointed out that all these activities have been and are being recommended, contrary to MCA, needing an Environmental Review, that MCA 87-1-323 that management of viable elk populations are based on habitat acreage, not brucellosis management of the potential of a 0.00024% chance that a Montana cattle could become infected with brucellosis from elk.

I pointed out, that in addition to wasting sportsmens dollars on these actions with no public hunter access requirement, by FWP paying for this tall, wildlife excluding fencing, they could be exposing FWP to litigation involving multiple species of habitat corridor issues, further wasting sportsmens dollars.

Due to 3 minutes limit (a public trust issue and the public only gets 3 minutes), that is all I could squeeze in to object to. This whole thing sucks!

But I think, the thing that got me the most, was a statement by our Fish, Wildlife & Parks representative (not being able to see the video of the speakers, I will assume he was wearing the FWP uniform when he spoke, instead of a DOL uniform), Quentin Kujula stated, of this program managing for a BRUCELLOSIS TRANSMISSION OF ZERO! At no time did the Statewide Elk Brucellosis Working Group ever make such a statement. It is not in any FWP document online, or that I have received, concerning this program. BUT, I have seen that statement in objectives, strategies and numerous documents from APHIS and their eradication of brucellosis in our wildlife agenda.

I got a call from a sportsmens group last night, asking questions about this situation and asking if I would be willing to come there and do a presentation of these issues and the science/stats. I told him I would be more than glad to. I am hoping that there is enough time to get awareness spread to overwhelmingly defeat this special interest bullsh*t from further infecting our FWP. Thats the real infection threat here.

 

[katqanna]

So heres what our newspapers reported on this.

Montana FWP considers fencing, killing elk to protect cattle - Missoulian no mention that these would be 6-8 ft, wildlife obstructing (or capturing), miles of fences and yes, I did mention the costs that were lied about. No mention that these actions, as well as the rest of the program are being done without any public hunter access, as in Game Damage.

Paradise Valley ranchers propose ways to corral brucellosis - Billings Gazette "Fish, Wildlife and Parks currently has a policy to pay for fencing materials to block wildlife from raiding haystacks. The fencing supplies are provided to landowners who allow public hunting." Not under this program! And again, miles of tall expensive fencing and after Feb. 15th kill dates.

Sportsmen are getting set up for this problem.

 

[Rimrock]

Was going to comment here after getting back from the long-distance FWP Commission thing at Region 3 yesterday, but got home to some substantial camelina oil orders and other bookwork backlog. So now it'll be available at Lucky's Market chain, as well as the grocery store in Harrison! Different ends of the spectrum, but...
So when farming in February is fun, that's good!!
Anyway, at least the articles linked above mention input from others on this issue, as well as http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/wildlife/article_647e1314-9517-11e3-90b6-0019bb2963f4.html
So again, we'd urge all of you to submit comment to the Commission on this. One thing I didn't get quoted on was that the solution to this situation is to come up with an effective livestock vaccine. I think every head I could see on the screens nodded to that one.

 

[katqanna]

George Ochenski just posted a guest column on this elk working group modification - Hunting, wildlife communities, just say ‘no’ to FWP’s elk proposal

Contrary to the Bozeman Chronicle and Lundquists articles, posted above, I am not a GWA member.

I spoke with Ochenski, this fall, about the legal violations of this program and he is on my email list for updates. Of all the articles written so far, Ochenski got one of the main points I have been stressing in all this -

"But here’s the rub: while there is clear statutory authority to kill and haze elk under Montana’s game damage laws, there is no specific statutory authority for Fish, Wildlife and Parks to haze, harass or kill elk simply for the threat of transmitting disease to domestic livestock. In other words, Montana’s Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks is now contemplating spending hunter license fees – and harassing and killing public wildlife – without specific legal authority to do so."

I just got a document from the Legislative Services, from 2010, concerning this whole Designated Surveillance Area (DSA) that gives APHIS/DOL authority over the wildlife with exposure to brucellosis. It again confirms what I had researched about this Helena FWP elk brucellosis program, a MEPA needed to be done.

"Question: Is the DOL's Designated Surveillance For Brucellosis Official Order 10-01-D (January 13, 2010) an action that should have been subject to the MEPA review process? Short Answer - Probably, yes. The DOL is not a state agency that is exempted from MEPA. The DOL Order is an action that is defined under MEPA and the DOL's administrative rules and the DOL Order likely is not exempted or excluded from MEPA review." "Conclusion: Based on this unfortunately lengthy but necessar legal analysis, the DOL's Order probably should have been subject to the MEPA review process."

 

[katqanna]

4 Montana papers just ran my oped on the brucellosis fear mongering in Montana and this elk watershed group. I was grateful, hoping this will help to generate public response against these modifications, getting this shut down.

The other evening I was discussing this with an older elk hunter conservationist. He is like a walking encyclopedia, a treasure. He brought up a situation where he witnessed baiting of wild elk, by the father of elk game ranching, Welch Brogan, into a tall fenced in pasture and shut the gates behind them. He reported the incident to the FWP Game Warden, who investigated, finding that Brogan did have wild elk mixed with his captive herds. At any rate, the research on Brogan confirmed one of my concerns, that these 6-8 foot tall fences are not just intended or can be utilized as exclusionary, but also for harboring, containment of wildlife during hunting season.

So I added that info to my blog article, with the law case, the MCA legal livestock cattle fencing definition and the question of possible litigation, What is the real cost to sportsmen and wildlife with the Elk Management in Areas With Brucellosis?

 

[shoots-straight]

This could be the biggest issue to come down the pike in a long time. I would hope everyone would stay engaged on this.

 

[katqanna]

A few days ago, I received a fowarded email, originating from Jessica Anderson, District Administrator/Watershed Coordinator, Park Conservation District, stating that the "UYWB voted to appoint Druska Kinkie (rancher) as the chair of the Elk Brucellosis Local Working Group."
I have expressed my concerns, numerous times, to FWP administrators of this elk brucellosis program, as well as Director Jeff Hagener and the FWP Commissioners concerning the obstruction of this process and the Park County special interest hijacking of the local working group, that this was actually an Upper Yellowstone Watershed Basin group, not the Statewide Elk Brucellosis Working Group proposed and FWP Commission approved multi-stakeholder local process.

I went to all the Park County meetings, recording them, making the information available to the public, and there was not a single meeting that all those attending, had any vote on a chair for the local working group. We came together and it was a done deal from the start. When I requested a copy of the sign in sheet of the first meeting from FWP Quentin Kujula, he replied, "I do not have the sign-up sheet - assumed then and now that a watershed representative picked it up." In the audio of the meetings, as well as the FWP Commission meeting on Feb. 13th, FWP's Quentin Kujula refers to the working group as the "watershed group."

This watershed group seeks to pillage FWP sportsmen dollars for miles of their 6-8 tall, wildlife obstructing fencing, extending kill dates of elk to May 15th, all of this outside of Montana laws concerning elk management.
"Based on a review of the foregoing information, it appears that there is no specific reference in the Montana Code Annotated regarding the Departments's authority to manage elk for purposes of reducing or preventing the transmission of brucellosis between elk and livestock." Dec. 6, 2013 Montana Legislative Services Division Inquiry into the MT Elk Management In Areas With Brucellosis finding

In fact, not only does this Elk Brucellosis program need a MEPA process, but the APHIS directed Montana DOL Designated Surveillance Area needs one. "The DOL is not a state agency that is exempted from MEPA. The DOL Order is an action that is defined under MEPA and the DOL's administrative rules and the DOL Order likely is not exempted or excluded from MEPA review...Based on this unfortunately lengthy but necessary legal analysis, the DOL's Order probably should have been subjected to the MEPA review process" Feb. 25, 2010 Montana Legislative Services Division Opinion on the Application of MEPA to the Department of Livestock's Designated Surveillance Area for Brucellosis Official Order

All of this for a livestock originating disease, which according to MT DOL's State Veterinarian poses a small risk to MT's cattle (based on his testimony in Texas when defending MT cattle), a risk of 0.00024% chance (probably less when you factor in that not all cases have been elk). This wildlife naturalized disease is not the harbinger of doom that DOL and APHIS have promoted it as. In fact, not all the cases of brucellosis that have broken out here in Montana's cattle (also WY and ID) have been the result of elk; some have been from cattle and vaccine blooms (for example the 2008 case of the Corriente heifer that originated in Park County was found to have 5 Brucella abortus isolates, which included cattle isolates, yet DOL reported it as elk - epidemiology report I found on an archived DOL site in a Brucellosis folder, this is corroborated by epidemiology papers produced by APHIS personnel that set me off looking into this subject).

Brucellosis is in the wildlife populations and elk are a major vector back to the cattle. But brucellosis cannot be eradicated from wildlife without slaughtering all elk, bison, deer and moose, sterilizing the wild, then repopulating; at great cost, decades of management, billions of taxpayer dollars and untold man power hours and resources with no guarantee of success.

We need scientific management of our wildlife, not APHIS and DOL control, with their livestock management over our FWP wildlife. This small elk risk could have been mitigated by the reasonable proposals that were first promoted by the Statewide Elk Brucellosis Working Group. Since this process has been hijacked by the APHIS/DOL brucellosis eradication in wildlife agenda being directed out of Helena, we need the Montana Environmental Policy Act process, required by Montana law, that should have been enacted in the first place, to be conducted.

Elk Brucellosis "Working Group" Page

Public Comments Deadline March 21st, needed for the Elk Management in Areas with Brucellosis 2014, Work Plan Modifications Paradise Valley - [email protected]

 

[shoots-straight]

Kat,

Could you send that write up out as a "request for action". To all the sportsman's advocate groups?

 

[katqanna]

Shoots, I sent out such an email to those on my email lists, included the Statewide Elk Working Group, the FWP Regional Supervisors, FWP Commissioners, the conservation non-profits that dont give a rip about elk (yet). I included MSA heads, BHA Munther's on there and MWF pres and some of the affiliate heads I know and a number of independent hunters that arent parts of organizations. I have a bunch of Montana's on a couple of my lists, but I dont know all of them, some were sent to me to add back in the summer. If you pm your email address, I will send you a copy that you can send out, or email me at [email protected] .