FWP Commission passed the Paradise Valley Modifications

[katqanna]

This afternoon, to a packed room of sportsmen who voiced objections to this Elk Brucellosis program, stating an EA, EIS or Environmental Review needed to be done, asked for science and objected to many specifics of this program and the proposals, three of the FWP Commissioners passed the modifications, extending the kill permits to May 15th and approving sportsmen paying for livestock, wildlife excluding pasture fencing.

Commissioner Westit and Tourtlotte spoke against it. Then Commissioner Vermillion stated his reasons why it should be approved, followed by Commissioner Stuker, a rancher, who stated that if he was a rancher in Paradise valley and the sportsmen got in the way, that he would block off public hunting access. Well, maybe Commissioner Stuker doesnt know, but threatening withdrawal of public hunter access here is not really a threat, because none of these ranchers participate in Block Management and a number of public comments, as well as testimony stated individual attempts for permission to hunt were declined down there. Commissioner Wolfe also approved it so the vote was 3 to 2.

Sportsmens groups in attendance that spoke out were the RMEF, MSA, MWF, Skyline Sportsmens Association, Anaconda Sportsmens Club, Ravalli Fish & Wildlife, Gallatin Wildlife Association (I may be missing a group), as well as individuals.

So besides the expected FWP passing this heinous proposal, I have to ask a major question - how can an FWP Commissioner, that is supposed to be a steward of our wildlife, during a commission meeting, sit there, as a rancher, and threaten a boycott of public hunter access if ranchers dont get their way?

In addition, 4 sources (FWP Quentin Kujula, MT DOL Marty Zaluski, ranchers Druska Kinkie and Rep. Alan Redfield) all stated that all the cattle infections in Park county are localized in one small area on Mill Creek. If I heard correctly, Kujula stated all 3 cases were from the same ranch. He could have been mistaken on that point, but from my genetics research, comparing the reports of infections, I have narrowed the cases down to a small area. How is it that of all the DSA (4 counties and part of a 5th), where seropositive elk roam freely near cattle operations, the only cattle infections since they have the technology to determine Brucella abortus isolates (2008), are from that one small location in Park County? While I know elk can transmit, I also know from these reports that there have been cases of cattle isolate infection and RB51 vaccine blooms.

So are all infected elk targeting a small location to have abortions and infect cattle, while avoiding the rest of the DSA ranchers? That would be ludicrous. I believe we need an independent testing (not APHIS and DOL who have brucellosis in wildlife eradication agendas and mission statements) to test those Park county cases and see what is really up, especially since the 2008 Corriente cow had 3 cattle isolates identified.

Rancher Druska Kinkie said that this was a hardship on ranchers because infections hurt the ranchers reputations and stigmatize them. While I empathize with ranchers that have to go through any disease quarantine (Stuker brought up when his cattle had a false test positive for TB), I explained that I understand the results of a bad disease reputation and being stigmatized. That we have bison who have never transmitted, academically are a risk of 0.0-0.3% (.3% an academic safety net) that have the reputation of being brucellosis carriers infecting cattle. They are stigmatized as diseased vermin by livestock to the point that they cannot enter Montana without being hazed back to the Park or shot. And now that machinery is trying to do the same to our elk.

They assumed last time it was the bison and were wrong. I think we need to demand independent proof before we lay down and let them do that to our elk.

BTW, at the IBMP meeting that was going on here in Bozeman at the same time, APHIS pushed for elk and other wildlife to be added to the IBMP process.

 

[shoots-straight]

This commission shows how the power of the rubber stamp works.

This is a bad precedent setting plan. The implications might be greater than HB 42 passed in 2003.

 

[RobertR]

Who is managing the wildlife FWP or the Stock Growers? This is both bad and good news. The bad news is that it may not stop with the park elk. The good news there might be more elk on public land. The other side of this is there could be starving animals if they cannot migrate. The negatives far out way the positives. We need some new blood on the game commission.

 

[katqanna]

The bad news is that it may not stop with the park elk.

Robert, APHIS cant get control outright of the Park elk, like they couldnt the bison. But they can work through MT DOL in Montana, just as they have with the bison. They have gained control through the Brucellosis Management Plan, the Cooperative Agreement that the State has signed on to. So it wont be the Park elk they start with, it will be the DSA elk, which mean Park, Gallatin, Madison, Beaverhead and part of Sweetgrass.

They even stated at the commission meeting today, this is about the Paradise today, but the other groups in the Madison and Ruby are already looking at getting these modifications added to the 2015 Work Plan in the DSA, so the extended kills, the fencing, it will be DSA wide shortly. Between these costs and the resulting lawsuits, this is going to seriously cost sportsmen, not just in elk in an area already in a decline. And y'all should realize, the commissioners have been asked, told, begged to call for the required Environmental Review since Oct when I first found it before the commission meeting, not only to do the right thing by the wildlife, but by sportsmen and yet they passed this anyway.

See Gary Wolfe has not been confirmed yet. The Republicans told Bob Ream that they would not confirm him and he retired, not wanting to fight the confirmation battle. I was watching that commission meeting on satellite when it occurred. Gary Wolfe would need those votes for confirmation. Vermillion is from Park County, thats his turf, just an opinion, but I think there is some political seed sewing going on. Stuker is a rancher and laid it out in the open, you dont get in the way of livestock or sportsmen loose. The 2015 Work Plan will be written shortly and you mark my words, this will be SOP in that work plan if we dont force an Environmental Review. Since they wont do it willingly, that means a lawsuit - a further waste of sportsmens dollars. We need those funds for wildlife and habitat, not wasting it because the commission intentionally chose to ignore the North American Model and scientific wildlife management over special interest politics. Its like they are intentionally trying to handicap/bankrupt wildlife management.

Ron Moody, the one commissioner that had this program amended from the initial proposal, when this thing was voted through last Jan, even used his public comments to rebuke and warn them of their actions and the ramifications of their passing these modifications today.

 

[katqanna]

I have been trying to get this update out today, but the phone has been ringing off the hook with infuriated hunters about what occurred at the commission meeting. I sent out my email update with this addition to the information I posted here, in case y'all are interested in this part of the meeting.

The first involved the Mountain Lion quota proposal, which involved a paper by FWP Kelly Proffitt et al, published in 2014. Estimating mountain lion abundance in the Bitterroot Watershed, is not only academically contentious, but having attended the FWP Region 3 Mountain Lion meeting in which Kelly Proffitt did a presentation on the study, houndsmen present, including those that participated in the study, objected to statistics, modeling, final analysis and recommendations, saying that there were not that many mountain lions. This study involved a 98 day snapshot in time of the Mountain Lion population, is not a sufficient time frame in which to gather data to utilize for modeling. Especially one that seeks to radically decimate the population as 30% reduction in regional lion density by applying a 35% annual female harvest over a 3 year period. Their stats base in not correct, contested houndsmen. By Proffitts own statements, this was not a complete coverage survey, juveniles could have been counted as individual adults, and hunter take was included, which would alter counts. Academics across the country are questioning this study. This study is being advocated by FWP over the 9 year Garnet Range Mountain Lion Study, 2011 Final Report, which would not support this proposal. Despite overwhelming houndsmen opposition to this tentative proposal of raising the mountain lion quotas, as well as testimony against this paper by Dr. Gary Koehler, retired from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, in addition to clarifying statistics application by Bozeman Veterinarian Dr. Mark Albrecht DVM (hunter and Statewide Elk Brucellosis Work Group member), the Commission accepted the tentative, which is up for public comment now. The Mountain Lion papers and audio can be found here.

In a Montana Public Radio broadcast yesterday evening, reporter Dan Boyce covering the commission meeting stated, "The lion hunters don’t want too many of the cats taken if they feel it’s going to jeopardize the overall population. But Vermillion says there are other Bitterroot hunters, 'Who would tell you "what's happened to our deer herd, what's happened to our elk herd. The wolves and the lions are killing too many elk and deer." ' " Those hunters either were not present or did not speak up at the commission meeting yesterday.

 

[jryoung]

Commissioner Stuker, a rancher, who stated that if he was a rancher in Paradise valley and the sportsmen got in the way, that he would block off public hunting access.

Suddenly, I don't feel so bad with respect to the President of our Commission noting that legal hunting may not be sustainable. Glad to know Montana is just as effed up as we are....okay maybe you aren't that effed up.

 

[katqanna]

Suddenly, I don't feel so bad with respect to the President of our Commission noting that legal hunting may not be sustainable. Glad to know Montana is just as effed up as we are....okay maybe you aren't that effed up.

I had a guy call me this morning telling me he woke up at 4:30 pissed about what happened yesterday and the blatant disregard for scientific wildlife management for politics. He said for 60+ years he has been pulling this conservation wagon of Public Trust away from the "Brink". And here the FWP Commission, Helena FWP, DOL, Stockgrowers Assoc.etc, are hellbent on pushing that wagon over the "Brink". He asked me to do a cartoon on it. I heard the "F" word a lot today.

BTW, here is a link to The Satirical Magpie cartoons, which I had just sent two out on the day before the commission mtg.

 

[shoots-straight]

I have been trying to get this update out today, but the phone has been ringing off the hook with infuriated hunters about what occurred at the commission meeting. I sent out my email update with this addition to the information I posted here, in case y'all are interested in this part of the meeting.

The first involved the Mountain Lion quota proposal, which involved a paper by FWP Kelly Proffitt et al, published in 2014. Estimating mountain lion abundance in the Bitterroot Watershed, is not only academically contentious, but having attended the FWP Region 3 Mountain Lion meeting in which Kelly Proffitt did a presentation on the study, houndsmen present, including those that participated in the study, objected to statistics, modeling, final analysis and recommendations, saying that there were not that many mountain lions. This study involved a 98 day snapshot in time of the Mountain Lion population, is not a sufficient time frame in which to gather data to utilize for modeling. Especially one that seeks to radically decimate the population as 30% reduction in regional lion density by applying a 35% annual female harvest over a 3 year period. Their stats base in not correct, contested houndsmen. By Proffitts own statements, this was not a complete coverage survey, juveniles could have been counted as individual adults, and hunter take was included, which would alter counts. Academics across the country are questioning this study. This study is being advocated by FWP over the 9 year Garnet Range Mountain Lion Study, 2011 Final Report, which would not support this proposal. Despite overwhelming houndsmen opposition to this tentative proposal of raising the mountain lion quotas, as well as testimony against this paper by Dr. Gary Koehler, retired from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, in addition to clarifying statistics application by Bozeman Veterinarian Dr. Mark Albrecht DVM (hunter and Statewide Elk Brucellosis Work Group member), the Commission accepted the tentative, which is up for public comment now. The Mountain Lion papers and audio can be found here.

In a Montana Public Radio broadcast yesterday evening, reporter Dan Boyce covering the commission meeting stated, "The lion hunters don’t want too many of the cats taken if they feel it’s going to jeopardize the overall population. But Vermillion says there are other Bitterroot hunters, 'Who would tell you "what's happened to our deer herd, what's happened to our elk herd. The wolves and the lions are killing too many elk and deer." ' " Those hunters either were not present or did not speak up at the commission meeting yesterday.

Your last statement is not true. I spoke in favor of the science that was gathered and said we looked forward to participating in the Lion working group. We (RCF&W ass. supported and helped pay for the study.

There's a lot of history on the cats of the Root to fall back on, so one doesn't even have to agree with the DNA study. There was 566 cats killed in Ravalli County alone, from 1990-2000. We averaged 56 cats a year then. There was no doubt in everyones mind that we knocked those cats back, and that harvest could not be sustained. So the vocal (8) houndsman from the Bitterroot Valley organized and lobbied to get the kill stopped. We took 89 in the next 8 years average of 11 per year. We raised a lot of cats by all accounts. So we have a range without the DNA study.

The Elk mortality study showed cats are the leading killer of cow elk, and calves here. Our deer herds are the lowest I've seen without virtually any hunting going on. We are hitting the wolves as hard as possible, and must reduce the lions a little just to level the playing field. Honestly you could kill off every cat here, and the next year be right back were you were the year before. We have a huge area to draw from for infill.

I didn't speak to the quota's because there was no need. The Lion Working Group will have those, and then in the June Commission meeting we'll have a chance to discus those. We will be in support of the numbers that come from the Working Group.

 

[shoots-straight]

BTW, I used the F-word a lot today too.

 

[drahthaar]

If those ranchers want to fence off their ranches, they should pay for it themselves. They wouldn't be the first. But having sportsmen pay for it is total crap.

I know a rancher up in Lincoln County that got sick of elk on his 4000 acres, he paid for some dude from New Zealand to come and put a fence around his ranch. Never once did he suggest sportsmen should pay for it.

God I lose a lot of sleep when I read about this crap.

 

[katqanna]

Your last statement is not true. I spoke in favor of the science that was gathered and said we looked forward to participating in the Lion working group. We (RCF&W ass. supported and helped pay for the study.

Shoots, I remember the Ravalli speaking, I had to sit in the front (got there 8:45) and remember the statement about the working groups. I hope y'alls working groups go easier than the elk. I warned a couple guys when that notice went out that the FWP process they are setting up is the same as the statewide elk working group. Same facilitator and the same frustrating structured decision making process (which does not have a good rep).

But, I must have misunderstood your statements, as well as others who mentioned after the elk meeting that all the houndsmen spoke against this paper. I will have to listen when they post the audio. I apologize if I misunderstood you and stated contrary to your position. Thank you for clarifying that.


drahthaar, I think there are different ideas for "sick of elk". Many of these ranchers at the watershed group were very vocal about not wanting the elk on the land and even tried to bring landowners that didnt have livestock, but wanted elk off their property to be able to use this fencing, at which point Karen Loveless stated that it would be hard to justify as brucellosis oriented if there was no livestock. Anyway, while mapping out the ranches in the areas of the cattle infections this evening, I came across this nearby Three Peaks Ranch for sale, managed by Ryan Malone, one of those at the meetings and son of Park County Commissioner Marty Malone, a very outspoken opponent to bison and elk. Ryan complained about the 250 lethal cap on elk in the DSA 2014 Work Plan.

"Beautiful healthy elk herd on this Montana ranch" One of the selling points.

 

[drahthaar]

Great! Then when the ranch sells, the new owner that bought the ranch because of "healthy elk herd" can tear down Ryan's fargin fence.

 

[drahthaar]

I hope the commission gets a lot of emails over this.

 

[RobertR]

As for the health elk herd in paradise valley, I have to question if all the elk were blood tested for brucellosis. The park is at fault for the brucellosis because they had dairy cows within the park that had brucellosis.

 

[katqanna]

As for the health elk herd in paradise valley, I have to question if all the elk were blood tested for brucellosis. The park is at fault for the brucellosis because they had dairy cows within the park that had brucellosis.

Robert, there is no way to blood test for brucellosis. A blood test only indicates antibodies which are also indicators of natural and acquired immunities, not just possible current infection or chronic infection. You would have to kill the animal and culture from certain organs or materials to determine infection.

Think of chicken pox (though that is a virus and can flare up later in life). You can contract it as a child, developing antibodies to it, that will then show up in a blood test as seropositive, but that does not mean that you are currently or chronically infected with it.

 

[RobertR]

Katqanna correct me if I'm wrong but FWP has blood testing kits for harvested elk and I do believe and cattlemen also blood test or take bone marrow for bucelosis.

 

[katqanna]

Katqanna correct me if I'm wrong but FWP has blood testing kits for harvested elk and I do believe and cattlemen also blood test or take bone marrow for bucelosis.

Yes, FWP has hunter harvest kits for blood testing, but that test only determines antibody titers, not infection or infectious. The FWP tests are to help determine the seroprevalence (percentage of population) that shows antibodies. APHIS and DOL want to know how far this extends, that gives them jurisdiction.

The same for the cattle. If they test positive, they then slaughter the animal, collect certain material, like the lymph nodes which are closest to the sexual organs and send them to Ames, Iowa where the APHIS VS testing laboratory is. They try to culture the material, if it cultures Brucella abortus, the animal is declared culture positive - infected/infectious. If you notice when the DOL reports there is a seropositive, they then have to wait for the culture test to determine if it was truly infected or just had antibodies.

In WY they have greater seroprevalence due to the feedgrounds, hence better educational materials. Here is a pdf from WGF on brucellosis. Page 3 explains the blood test and the culture test. "Blood testing shows the proportion of animals that have been exposed to brucellosis and developed antibodies— veterinarians call this proportion 'seroprevalence.' This testing doesn’t necessarily mean that the animal can transmit the disease. Another test is used to culture the bacteria from tissue samples— a
positive case or 'culture positive' indicates that the animal actually harbors the bacteria and may be able to transmit to other animals. These tests can only be done postmortem."

 

[muleguy]

Where's the state leaders

Where are the state's leading sportsman's orginizations when it hits the fan for sportsmens?

Where is Montana Wildlife Federation?

 

[katqanna]

At the commission meeting on Thursday, one of the commenters said there was a ranch in Paradise that advertised luring elk with alfalfa fields. I found it. It is the Chimney Rock Outfitters owned by the O'Hair family. Jerry O'Hair is always a very vocal opponent to bison and elk brucellosis and was one of the ranchers attending these meetings. Here are the screen shots from their website that mention the luring and that "Chimney Rock Outfitters carefully manages the elk and deer for maximum potential trophies." This is now two of the watershed working group members that profit from the elk, yet they are claiming diseased wildlife trying to get sportsmens dollars to pay for wildlife obstructing fencing and late season kill dates with no public hunter access, in addition to the regular 2014 Work Plan actions against the elk.

 

[Nameless Range]

Thanks for your work Kat. Is becoming increasingly difficult to sympathize with the ranchers on this one. Specifically those in the working group.

Why the hell are sportsman's dollars paying for fences that benefit private businesses? What sort of precedent does this set if Brucellosis risks increase in other areas of Montana where both ranchers and elk meet?