FWP Serving our elk up on an APHIS platter April 10th.

[katqanna]

I just downloaded the FWP cover letter and adjustments to the Elk Management in Areas with Brucellosis 2014 Work Plan - Local Modifications which were submitted by the Park County watershed "working group", which they dominated and controlled. This was no working group.

I combined the two documents and uploaded them, so nothing gets altered or "disappeared". Here is the document link.



Helena FWP is moving that the FWP Commission adopt these modifications with the FWP "adjustments". They state, "In response to public comment that included significant opposition to the original Paradise Valley brucellosis work plan proposal, please see adjusted final proposal below. Proposal adjustments reflect efforts by FWP to respond to public concern and opposition while also providing additional risk mitigation in the Paradise Valley where there is history of repeat livestock infections in specific areas. Given FWP’s charge to manage Montana’s wildlife in perpetuity, the department believes these proposed efforts represent a measured approach to risk management that will broadly maintain elk on the landscape and help insulate them against more deleterious management advocacies."

Yes, this would be the bloody APHIS/DOL plan I found when I began investigating, which they have quietly been moving towards, the one that would turn their machinery they have been using against the bison, to the elk. The APHIS plan they mentioned in the Nov. IBMP meeting where APHIS stated they wanted to include elk in the discussion, which was capture, test, slaughter and vaccinate of as many bison as they could get their hands on.

They are going to keep the May 15th extension for kill permits. "To further reduce risk and public concern with the late stage of pregnancy, emphasis shall be given to lethal removal of yearling and bull elk." 3 kills per permit btw.

As to the fencing, they are going to proceed with the 6-8 ft high elk proof fencing, but requiring - "any proposed fencing project with FWP support shall require a written plan submitted to the Fish and Wildlife Commission for review and potential approval. This shall include a public review and comment period and potentially a checklist EA depending on project size." So far the public has been repeatedly objecting to this program and they just keep right on passing everything. So now we, the public, are going to have to keep an eye out for their fencing project plans and continue to submit our public opposition comments? Like the public was notified about the work group meetings? How many of y'all were notified about those?

"Any such fencing project may be only with those landowners that have developed and followed a livestock risk management plan for brucellosis. This may include risk management plans developed by the Landowner with the Montana Department of Livestock." Every cattle producer in the Designated Surveillance Area (DSA) is already required by the APHIS Brucellosis Management Plan, forced on Montana, to have these risk management plans with DOL. This APHIS/DOL Montana Brucellosis Management Plan is what hijacked our FWP in Helena through the governor.

Then they go on to describe the cattle and elk proof fencing. "Consistent with the concept of a 'pilot project', not more than two of these fencing projects may be implemented without at least one full year of evaluation after the fences have been put in place. Any evaluation shall assess effective wildlife passage around these fenced areas. In the event adequate wildlife passage is not maintained or there are consistent wildlife captures, the landowner and FWP must pursue appropriate modifications. Individual fencing projects may include multiple landowners."

This is what our Helena FWP is proposing to do with our elk on April 10th, hand them on a silver platter to APHIS/DOL, with nary a wildlife agency steward word to be heard!

 

[bigskyblueman]

This allows multiple landowners to link the fences together as far as the eye can see and call it a single project, effectively fencing off the entire Paradise Valley.

 

[bigskyblueman]

Apparently this brain trust working group wants to remove lower elevation winter range, kill elk up to May 15th, capture , slaughter, etc., and perpetrate this hoax on the hunting public while getting us to pay for it all, including their free fences. This is the end of these elk.

 

[drahthaar]

So are these Yellowstone Park elk that migrate to this area that the DOL is turning against? Do the ranchers down there just want the elk gone? Literally?

And, are these decisions of test and slaughter going to be applied elsewhere in the state?

I am trying to understand this whole thing in that part of the state.

 

[Carrion Carrier]

Where are elk supposed to live? It sounds to me like it's time to remove CATTLE from Paradise Valley.

 

[Carrion Carrier]

and time to start chaining ourselves to barrels.

 

[katqanna]

So are these Yellowstone Park elk that migrate to this area that the DOL is turning against? Do the ranchers down there just want the elk gone? Literally?

And, are these decisions of test and slaughter going to be applied elsewhere in the state?

I am trying to understand this whole thing in that part of the state.

drahthaar, this is a modification for Paradise Valley, but the whole elk brucellosis program operates in the Designated Surveillance Area (DSA), which was established by APHIS/DOL without doing the required MEPA. Each GYA state has one. Ours involves 4 counties and part of a 5th. The Madison elk group did not get their stuff together to make a similar proposition to the FWP commissioners for their area, but under the 2014 work plan, they can take 250 elk from the DSA with these lethal removal "hunts" and kill permits. Still have stack fencing and hazers, all without any required public hunter access.

As to elk in the rest of the state, WY and ID game and fish have on their website the eradication of brucellosis in wildlife and both states have pursued elk test and slaughter because of the APHIS Brucellosis Management Plans. Theirs were public and online. Montana's was not. The more I dug, the more I found out what was going on. They were quieter about it here to not wake up the hunters and conservationists. Just recently they found brucelosis antibodies in elk outside of the DSA (last Board of Livestock meeting I attended), so they are going to expand it again and with it the APHIS/DOL control.

And yes, the ranchers in Paradise stated they wanted the elk numbers depopulated, wanted them off the land, except during hunting season of course.

Here is a map of the DSA from FWP with HD.
Here is the DOL DSA map of geography
The recent antibody find was in HD 311, southwest of Belgrade, so that is the direction of the expansion.

 

[Big Fin]

....... Still have stack fencing and hazers, all without any required public hunter access.

As much as I am a big advocate for public access, I struggle to see the connection of public hunter access to risk management of brucellosis, when the primary risk period is March-June, a time when we would not have hunting.

Some ranches in the DSA do allow public hunting, but there are no elk on those ranches during the regular big game seasons, yet they are covered up in elk during this time of the year. And, some ranches that do not allow public hunting in the regular big game seasons, are now void of elk, as we enter the peak season of brucellosis risk.

I am not willing to tie the cause of access to a different issue, disease management, without evidence that there is a beneficial and positive correlation between the two. To this point, no one has shown a connection between public hunting access and brucellosis risk.

It is obvious that there is a risk between wildlife congregations and disease risk. But, those are not the same issue in the context of risk management. Congregations this time of year can happen where there is public hunting access and congreagations may not exists at this time of year in areas closed to public hunting access. One issue, access, is pertinent from Sep-Nov, and the other issue, congregation, is pertinent from Jan-June.

In your research, have you found anything that shows public hunting access, something we all want to see more of, has reduced the risk of brucellosis transmission?

If such does not exist, I question the benefit of connecting the two. To me, this is a disease issue. It should not be funded by FWP/Hunter dollars. As it relates to elk and all of the citizens who benefit from elk and reduction of brucellosis, I advocate that solutions to the brucellosis issue need to come from the General Fund. We are all better off for efforts that could come from funding to help reduce risk, not just the hunters and ag producers.

....... And yes, the ranchers in Paradise stated they wanted the elk numbers depopulated, wanted them off the land, except during hunting season of course.

Do you have a link where these ranchers stated they want elk numbers depopulated? I don't doubt one or two might make such a comment, but I have not seen where the ranchers referred to in the context of the Paradise Valley working group have asked for anything like that.

As to these later date "dispersal hunts," I almost want some group other than hunters to be doing the dirty work. I don't think hunting and hunters are the appropriate tool for any such proposed action. All it does is gives hunters a black eye and uses hunters as the mechanism to do accomplish tasks that others don't want to have associated with them.

I also think Mark Albrecht has some valid points in questioning whether these dispersal hunts are a net positive or a net negative. Besides the authorization for kill permits to take three elk for lethal removal in the name of dispersal, does that stress create more abortions and therefore little the landscape with more risk than if no hunt was held? I don't know the answer, but Mark has some good reasons for asking such.

The kill permits also are to emphasize the killing of yearlings and bulls, hopiing to avoid pregnant females, which are the higher risk animals. Not sure I want to be at FWP in Helena when news reports come in that bulls, already perceived to be in short supply, are getting shot on these dispersal hunts. Or, when someone shoots a cow that is pregnat and a nearly full-term fetus ends up in some news article.

I think FWP has tried to make the use of kill permits a "last resort." This language they are suggesting to the Commission makes me think they view it this way.

A landowner or landowner’s agent, a hazer or other FWP staff may take an elk only on
private land within the DSA pursuant to these kill permits.

The area Commissioner and Regional Supervisor must jointly authorize these specific
kill permits.

Individual kill permits may not authorize more than three elk for lethal removal. Only one
kill permit per landowner may be authorized within this time frame......

Kill permits may be applied in this time period only if other risk management efforts are
not effective at reducing commingling events.

I don't like the use of these kill permits, espcially at this late date, even if it is highly regulated and very limited. I would rather see other dispersal options employed.

That being said, I am at a loss as to what the long-term solutions are. We all know that risk management is the only option, not erradication.

The Montana Stockgrowers have agreed to take test and slaughter off the table and work on risk management, rather than the false premise of erradication. Their focus is now on risk management.

For some prespecitve to this issue, put yourself in the shoes of ranchers who were placed under a year-long quarantine, as happened in 2012.

Imagine if you owned a business that is the paycheck for you and your family. For reasons out of your control, you were told you could not sell any of your inventory for a year. To keep the business running, you had to keep writing big checks to keep the doors open until the ban on your inventiry sales was lifted.

How many businesses could survive that? Not many. Yet, it is what this family faced. Thanks to their years of frugality, they were able to sustain this huge hit and get through the tube, but at a significant financial loss that they will never recover.

Imagine what the impact would be if any of us were denied a paycheck for a year, but still had to work hard, and had to keep going to work every day. Imagine we you had to fund $400K of operating expenses during the period in which we were not getting a paycheck.

Being in their shoes, here is how it looks for a couple of the ranches I am familiar with in the DSA who have been impacted by quarantines.

• They have very few elk in general big game season, so public hunting access is a net zero the the disease issue.
  
• Even if they hazed them via hunting or whatever other mechanism, they have neighbors that allow no elk hunting and have an extremely high elk tolerance, creating a sanctuary that impacts them.
  
• They are at a slightly lower elevation than their high elk-tolerance neighbors, so they are the first to green up and the elk come there in big numbers in late April in May.
  
• Even if the elk were harassed, they would go to the neighbor's sanctuary for the day, and come to their place at night, brining with them, increased risk of brucellosis transmission to their cattle and another quarantine.

This is part of the archaic APHIS rules I continue to talk about. As a hunter, I don't want the issue solved on the backs of elk and funded with hunter license dollars. But, I am willing to work with anyone to find possibe solutions such that working ranches can stay on the land, rather than sell to the next billionaire, and trust me, there are plenty of billionaires willing to buy some of these ranches and lock them up as their own private preserves.

I just don't have the answers for those folks trying to hang in there; folks who have a land ethic to keep their places undeveloped and help all wildlife; folks who have a land ethic that has made Montana the place I love. If anyone has those answers, other than the fringes of "My way or the highway," I would love to hear what those options are.

This is not an easy problem to solve. The complexity makes it very frustrating. That frustration makes it easy to have heated disagreements on the best solutions to take us to a place we are all wanting to be - a place with the lowest possible transmission risk.

 

[katqanna]

I dont know if y'all noticed but the commission meeting is scheduled at the1420 E. 6th Street Helena office. I have been told the room is small, only seating about 30 people. I know of more that were attending for the mountain lion and elk issues, so I called the office about the seating concerns. Betty stated that there are room dividers that can be removed to expand the room to seat about 60. The wildlife division begins roughly about 9:40, plus or minus an hour.

I also called to get the public comments submitted. I want to see the "significant opposition" they will at least acknowledge, yet put together these "adjustments" messing over sportsmen and wildlife.

Nowhere does this address the lack of checks and balances of the actual brucellosis infections in this area. They are placing the burden on wildlife, and granted elk can transmit to cattle, but there have also been vaccine blooms and cattle isolates involved.

Hell, Strawberry Ridge ranch (Park County), where the infection occurred in 2013, was one of the ranches involved in the spring 2013 dispersal hunt actions between March 10 - April 7th. There were 8 elk killed, 3 seropositive, but no one cultured them to see if they were actually infective. It seems good enough to them to just label an antibody positive elk "infected". No need for the science, no need for accountability. In a program that supposedly is about minimizing the risk of transmission, why leave gut piles that can transmit on the ground, especially if there is birthing material involved that would act like an abortion event, if there was actually an infected animal? While that is addressed in the current plan, we do not know who is going to manage and in what capacity. They could be making it worse. One of the female cow elk killed was pregnant, dragged through a cattle pen. Thankfully she tested negative, but if she had been positive and infective, that right there, all those birthing fluids, would have been a major vector for brucellosis transmission.

The reason I bring this up is that in Wyoming, in 2008, there was an infection in one cattle traced to elk. But the cattle were in an elk proof enclosure. The cattle owner and his son were employed at a nearby elk feeding ground, one duty was removing aborted fetuses. They actually were the transmitters of the brucellosis to their own cattle.

We need scientific wildlife management, agency transparency and accountability, not a special interest political elk witch hunt.

 

[BuzzH]

Randy,

What about some sort of insurance for the ranchers in regard to a sitation where brucellosis was detected? In the case of a detection and the resulting quarantine, the insurance would kick in to cover their lost revenue? I have no idea if its even possible. I would also question if it would be more cost effective to have the Government appropriate a pot of money to cover families that could be impacted by cattle-elk transmission if it were proven. Lots of predation loss is covered by government funds, not seeing how this is much different. Maybe trying to prove the transmission between elk/cattle would be too problematic, but IMO, this is a big part of the problem to begin with.

It seems to me that hazing elk, shooting them in April and May, etc. is going to "cost" plenty, politically, for just about everyone involved.

It also appears that vast amounts of money are being spent trying to prevent something that is damned unlikely to happen (transmission of brucellosis from elk to cattle).

 

[Big Fin]

Randy,

What about some sort of insurance for the ranchers in regard to a situation where brucellosis was detected? In the case of a detection and the resulting quarantine, the insurance would kick in to cover their lost revenue? I have no idea if its even possible. I would also question if it would be more cost effective to have the Government appropriate a pot of money to cover families that could be impacted by cattle-elk transmission if it were proven. Lots of predation loss is covered by government funds, not seeing how this is much different. Maybe trying to prove the transmission between elk/cattle would be too problematic, but IMO, this is a big part of the problem to begin with.

Buzz - I think some sort of program similar to what you mention needs to be part of the solution. To place all the financial burden of the impacts on the few unlucky ag operators who end up with a positive, seems extremely punitive. The unlucky operator could do everything thing asked, open their ranch to public hunting, participate in every program the DOL and FWP put together and they probably have the same transmission risk.

To me, that is a big part of the problem and is the source of why we see ag operators wanting some measures that seem rather extreme to someone who is a hunter. But, we as hunters are staying awake at night, wondering what more we can do, and worried that no matter what we do, it might be our unlucky day.

If the Feds really want to do something with crop insurance subsidies, seems calf crop insurance in the endemic brucellosis area would be a good place to spend that money. Not just for a way to help those who get put under quarantine, but for herds that get slaughtered due to positives.

Remove those financial worries to the operator and I suspect he has a different perspective on the issue. And, if hunters are the ones advocating for the changes that would get him out of the crosshairs, I suspect he/she would see hunters as an ally. I can think of a lot of other spending that has far less benefit than some sort of insurance or safety net to help these producers, most of whom are doing the right thing. Most of whom have had dozens of offers to sell or subdivide over the decades, but decline such attractive offers, for whatever reasons, and in the process, keep the landscapes holding more wildlife.

Maybe I am too optimistic/simplistic in my thoughts of some basic changes that can be made that are a good first stop. The fact that our firm does a lot of tax returns of ag producers in the DSA allows me to put names and faces with the financial impacts of brucellosis. I know some of the operators in the DSA. None of them want the burdens brucellosis has brought to their operations. They have done all that agencies have asked of them. They have a pretty high tolerance for elk and other wildlife. They just don't have much tolerance for wildlife that carries brucellosis.

It is going to be a decade, or longer, until a better cattle vaccine can be developed. Most vaccines are brought to market by the livestock pharma companies. The market for the improved brucellosis vaccine is going to be pretty small, relegated to producers in the endemic area. As such, the odds of a big pharma company going through the huge rigors of research, development, testing, and marketing an improved vaccine is very unlikely. It will required a Federal agency to take on that task, which given current budgets and politics seems unlikely.

So, what do we do in the interim? We manage the risk. The risk of disease transmission, but also the financial risk to those unlucky enough to have this disease spreading across their landscapes. I think your idea, or some derivative of it, has a lot of merit.

 

[katqanna]

Randy, we must have been typing at the same time.

First to address your question about why I stress the lack of public hunter access in this program, 3 reasons.
1. Fiscal - Game Damage requires public hunter access. All actions, whether a damage hunt, hazing, kill permits, stack fencing, etc., protect the sportsmens dollars and interest by requiring public hunter access. This elk brucellosis program borrowed from Game Damage, even the forms and terminology, yet excluded that key protective element - public hunter access.
2. Legal - Montana Law directs the public hunter access component of Game Damage, yet this program operates outside of Montana Law, so sportsmen have no legal access protection here. This was the third item the Park Co. watershed group wanted to submit to the commissioners, do away with the Hunt Roster and use hunters of their choosing.
3. Concentrations - Kelly Proffitt et al did a paper (Effects of Hunter Access and Habitat Security on Elk Habitat Selection in Landscapes With a Public and Private Land Matrix, which btw was partially funded by MT DOL, APHIS and the Greater Yellowstone Brucellosis Committee) which involved the Park and Madison Co. elk herds (DSA), finding that public hunting pressure on public lands was causing elk to seek security on private lands, just as soon as archery season began and increased during rifle season (remaining there during what would be the risk period of brucellosis abortions), causing the loss of the public land herd and an increase in a private land herd, which was echoed by the ranchers at the meetings, that congregations were increasing. "If hunting opportunity exists solely or disproportionately on public lands, hunting may selectively reduce numbers in the public land herd segment. If animals learn migratory and movement patterns as calves, over time this could result in the loss of the public land herd segment and limited private land hunts will not be effective in rebuilding the public lands segment of the herd over the short term. To rebuild the public segment of the herd over time, public lands hunting pressure may need to be reduced or eliminated while hunting pressure on private lands is increased, to affect differential mortality rates in different herd segments."

While the Proffitt study does not focus on disease management, the concentrations and locations of these herds do apply, thereby public hunter access pressure on private lands will not only be advantageous to restoring public land herds, but will also help to drive the "unwanted" elk congregations during abortion risk periods away from private lands, away from cattle. This is mentioned in Mapping Brucellosis Increases Relative to Elk Density Using Hierarchical Bayesian Models. "For example, increased hunting quotas may reduce overall elk densities and yet have no effect upon the size of the largest groups if those groups exist in areas with little to no hunting. Temporal scale is also an important consideration. The effects of hunting and wolf predation on elk group sizes may differ depending on the timescale. In the short-term, wolves and hunters may concentrate elk due to behavioral effects, while the longer-term demographic effects may reduce elk aggregations."

Cost-Benefit Analysis of a Reduction in Elk Brucellosis Seroprevalence in the Southern Greater Yellowstone Area (2013) stated, "It is suspected that private lands with limited hunting access in these areas are creating an environment similar to feedgrounds (increased seroprevalence)."

Probable causes of increasing brucellosis in free-ranging elk of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (2010), "Addressing the unintended consequences of these increasing populations is complicated by limited hunter access to private lands, which places many ungulate populations out of administrative control. Agency–landowner hunting access partnerships and the protection of large predators are two management strategies that may be used to target high ungulate densities in private refuges and reduce the current and future burden of disease."

These are just a few quick references. I have not gone through all these studies to specifically reference public hunter access and brucellosis, though that may be a good idea for future reference, since it is mentioned in a number of studies.

Depopulation of elk statements - I recorded and uploaded the audio of all three watershed meetings where you can hear the comments about the elk and wanting them off their lands. I did not transcribe every time they repeated these statements, or I would have been at it for hours. In the last meeting, they kept bringing it up in reference to pivots and non livestock landowners, with it repeatedly being pointed out that it would be hard to justify if they did not have cattle since this was supposed to be about brucellosis. All the meetings had such comments. Marty Malone and Jim Durgan, both Park County commissioners have made those comments at a Park County commission meeting I attended and they were also at these watershed meetings. Durgan stated in the 3rd meeting, "“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. Hes got cattle that probably needs that feed just as much as those elk do."

I addressed some of the actions that could possibly be making this worse, which Mark asked at the last meeting and was ignored. Druska kept associating commingling with brucellosis transmission and Mark would correct her stating it was not commingling but an abortion event (birthing materials or gut piles can mimic abortion events increasing transmission).

Randy, I empathize with ranchers wanting to protect their herds from disease. I empathize with what a quarantine could do. I am greatly appreciative that the Interim Rule no longer required complete herd depopulation, which could devastate a genetic breeding program and inventory. Ideas, possible solutions is what the Statewide Elk Brucellosis Workgroup worked on for a year, ideas to help mitigate the conflict. But this watershed group did not want to discuss anything. The watershed group appointed a chair with an agenda before the very first meeting. There was no multi stakeholder process. Their agenda was to rewrite the Proposed Recommendations, increasing the lethal objectives and get them to the FWP Commissioners to finalize as soon as possible. The first time many of them had even seen the Proposed Recommendations was when it and the 2014 Work Plan was passed out at the first meeting, where it was basically laughed at and dismissed. They only managed to get three things discussed and 2 submitted.

Education, rather than fearmongering and politics would be a great first step in helping to address these issues. That is the process the statewide members went through and they rejected eradication of brucellosis, test and slaughter from the mix and 8 of the 12 were ag/livestock. Public land forage habitat enhancement was also a tool. Has this been started? RMEF even offered grants towards this. Other suggestions in some of the academic papers have been later turn out dates where public land grazing occurs, reducing any abortion/birthing material exposure; raising spayed heifers and steers. Questioned at the livestock guardian dog presentation and asked by other agency officials out of state, was utilizing these dogs to haze elk from private lands, reducing possible risk transmission.

Of course, anything being done locally is but a bandaid to the bigger issue that is increasing the brucellosis seroprevalence (shortly CWD) in the first place, the 23 WY feed grounds. If enough public pressure was brought to bear on legislators and thereby upper echelons of government, those disease breeding grounds could be shut down.

 

[twodot]

BuzzH, "Government appropriate a pot of money to cover families that could be impacted" Say what!! How about reserving some money for Roofers, Electricians, and Plumbers while you're at it. How about some funds on tap for Trappers in case furs go back down? Give me a break. Our Government owes none of us a living. We all have the right to try to do business to the best of our ability, but if some bad luck comes our way, tough luck. If ranching proves to tough in a given area they could always sell out and most likely retire as millionaires. Yikes! Lets try thinking outside the box a bit more on this issue.

 

[Big Fin]

Thanks for the reply, Kat. I understand the connection between game damage and access, per MCA. But, I can find nothing in what you provided that shows any demonstrated evidence as to how hunting access in Sep-Nov hunting seasons changes the risk of brucellosis transmission during calving season.

I might be missing it. I am familiar with some of the studies you have cited. As you say, that study is not focused on brucellosis transmission.

I am not connecting the dots the same as you are, when it comes to brucellosis transmission risk, and the benefits of requiring hunting access in the big game season. Don't get me wrong, I am all for more access, whenever and wherever possible.

We all know that access can often be interjected into discussion as a tool of leverage. It seldom works, if ever. In the context of brucellosis, I fear we are again seeing the access pry bar being used for reasons that have nothing to do with reduced transmission during the risk periods of calving season; a time when we have no hunting seasons.

As much as I want to see more access, I don't want to complicate the effort toward possible solutions by bringing other valid, but disconnected, agendas into the discussion; in this case, trying to connect hunting access in big game season to the brucellosis issue. If hunting access, or lack thereof, is connected to the risk of transmission, then by all means, it should be part of the discussion. Just not seeing that.

This brucellosis issue is going to be, and has been, way more complicated than any we have faced regarding elk. It will require sorting out what is relevant and what is not relevant. To this point, the only relevance I see access having is the statutes related to game damage. Right now, if those game damage statutes are the governing language used for disease risk management programs, one must ask, "Why are we using game damage statutes for disease issues?"

I understand that some of the participants in this local working don't want elk and may state such. But, to say it in a way that implies that the group wants to depopulate elk seems rather overstated, at least under my impression of what I think of when I hear/read the term "depopulate." To me, depopulate means to go and rid the landscape of elk by intentional management action. None of the comments you refer to, those being the most extreme, make such a request.

Again, my reason for bringing up these points is to try keep the discussion on the topics that will make a difference on potential solutions. I believe hunters and ag producers both have the same end goal - reducing brucellosis risk. I believe if we are to find workable solutions, we have to distill the topic to issues that are relevant for finding solutions, leaving the other ancillary topics for other days and other discussions.

 

[BuzzH]

BuzzH, "Government appropriate a pot of money to cover families that could be impacted" Say what!! How about reserving some money for Roofers, Electricians, and Plumbers while you're at it. How about some funds on tap for Trappers in case furs go back down? Give me a break. Our Government owes none of us a living. We all have the right to try to do business to the best of our ability, but if some bad luck comes our way, tough luck. If ranching proves to tough in a given area they could always sell out and most likely retire as millionaires. Yikes! Lets try thinking outside the box a bit more on this issue.

I am thinking outside the box.

In most cases, I'd agree with you on the way we deal with farm subsidies, etc.

But, in this case, there are very limited options in how to mitigate the loss of revenue to both the ranching, hunting, and wildlife related economies from brucellosis. Keep the elk around and the hunting and wildlife related economies continue to thrive. Its in the collective best interest of ranchers, hunters, and the local economies that profit from same, to work to a viable solution that does the following:

1. Keep elk on the landscape to provide recreational values that also support local economies.

2. Protect Montana Families that really are trying to balance elk, cattle, predator tolerance, etc. with making a living.

3. Keep those family ranches intact, that will benefit local hunters, local wildlife, and also the economy provided by BOTH livestock and wildlife.

Theres a lot at stake, and IMO, the amount of money this would cost the taxpayers is miniscule in relation to what could potentially be lost if we dont all get on the same page to find a solution. Pay a bit now, or risk losing 2 huge economic drivers (hunting and ranching), valuable habitat, hunting opportunities, etc. etc.

I also dont believe that hunters and ranchers should be forced to pay for the problems associated with brucellosis.

 

[twodot]

Sorry Buzz, but your above stated reasons, 2 and 3 put you right back in the box. Not to sound hard, but Protecting MT families, and keeping ranches intact, as warm and cozy as that sounds. Is no responsibility of the Government. Never was, never should be.
You also wrap your post up saying "I don't think that hunters and ranchers should be forced to pay for problems associated with brucellosis". Well just who should pay then? I don;t think it really affects any other group directly. These people can fence their own land at their own cost. It works for me. If I want to keep the neighbors cattle off my deeded ground I build fence, at my cost. Pretty simple. I am constantly surprised by my MT friends and neighbors who brag about being independent, and cuss Unc Sam, but are always the first to want to suck on that nasty Government Sow's tit.

 

[BuzzH]

twodot,

If you dont think killing all the elk out of the area around Yellowstone to deal with brucellosis doesnt "really affects any other group directly"...I know that you arent seeing the big picture at all. Elk create a ton of revenue and are important to Montanas economy...directly and indirectly.

Sure, we can string fences from hell and gone and back...but those elk will just move to the next available country and be a problem there, or simply die when they cant find any suitable spring/early summer habitat. Shifting the brucellosis problem to the next area really isnt much of a solultion, matter of fact, isnt any sort of solution. Letting elk die around a fence boundary isnt much of a solution either.

I'd say its either pay for some type of insurance, direct payments to lost revenue to ranchers, or buy them out of their cattle interests.

Not many other viable solutions unless, like Randy stated, there is a better vaccine introduced.

BTW, there isnt a single person living in the U.S. thats not on the "nasty Government Sow's tit"...in particular people that live in the "independent" interior West.

 

[twodot]

Buzz, can you tell us just what the chances are of those elk passing brucellosis to cattle? Percentage please? I personally do not know, and that is a very important factor in this.
I very well know how potentially valuable those elk are to the surrounding area's economy. It's to bad the locals don't value them. Remember who wants to be able to kill these elk, it's not me.
"direct payments to lost revenue, or buy out their cattle interests." Oh my gosh, why not also get a program for California Fishermen to pay them, rather than have them catching too many of the fish that make up the local Killer Whales diet. It would make as much sense. Taking money from the majority to pay to a group of what, 30 or less ? Sounds like special interest group of the highest order to me.
No way. Are these same ranchers going to let their cattle graze on YOUR Nat.Forest/ BLM, State ground for the spring and summer, thereby competing with the same elk for food. Get a pair, tell these people if they want fence build it. Their cost. Then tell them that elk are a Protected Game Animal, don't be shooting the crap out of them out of season.
And Buzz there are many, many people in this country who have never, ever laid in the mire to suck the Government Sow. They are, however very rare in the agriculture business. And even rarer in the Rocky Mountain states.

 

[BuzzH]

twodot,

I'm not trying to change your mind on how to deal with the brucellosis problem, but taking no action is going to lead to a lot fewer elk, a publicity nightmare, and a political chit storm at a minimum. If some tax dollars can be used NOW to buy us some time to figure out the solution, its really a no brainer, IMO.

For the record, there are NO people in this country that arent on the "Government sows tit"...that is unless you dont drive on a public street, use a public library, take advantage of child credits on your taxes, drive on a public highway, use the government subsidized infrastructure (bridges, fencing, pipelines, etc. etc.), use the U.S. tax code for your businesses, student loans, fire suppression, national defense, land management, research and development of drugs, etc. etc. etc. and the list is endless of the benefits that the Government affords every single U.S. Citizen.

Yeah, we all pay taxes (some more than others), but we all get a whole lot more in return for what we pay, if only obviously.

 

[BigHornRam]

Very informed, reasonable, big picture comments Randy. Thanks.