Grazing Montana WMAs

[RobG]

What do you guys think of cattle grazing on Montana's WMAs? Ya, I was surprised the FWP is subsidizing the livestock industry too. At least some of the time they even lose money after administration fees are factored in.

 

[TheTone]

My concerns are how do the public and wildlife benefit from it?

 

[RobG]

My concerns are how do the public and wildlife benefit from it?

One argument is that the cattle remove "decadent vegetation," but I don't know why cattle would feed on that when everything else is greening up.

 

[BuzzH]

If grazing practices on the WMA's improve the over-all health of the habitat to support more wildlife, I dont have a problem with the FWP "losing" some money.

Also, IIRC, the WMA's are not under the same requirement as other state lands which are managed to make a profit for the state school trust.

Rob, the cattle may not "eat" the decadent vegetation...but may trample it, setting it back to an earlier successional stage.

Now would be a good time for 1-pointer to chime in.

 

[theat]

The one place that I really have a problem with this is on the Robb-Ledford WMA. I have seen bighorn sheep on it several times, even have pics and video. There is also a rancher that runs thousands of domestic sheep on this WMA as well. I guess FWP must not remember what happened here in western Montana when domestic sheep and wild sheep interact... usually doesn't end up so good for the bighorns. I have heard through the grapevine that FWP does not want to know about these sheep..i guess they either don't want to have to manage this herd or just plain don't want wild sheep using this WMA. I have spoken with them several times about this and the last time they took public comments on the grazing lease I sent in some pics and video of the bighorns on the "wildlife" management area... they still issued the lease.

 

[1_pointer]

I am perfectly fine with it, if, and only if, it's being used in a manner to improve habitat for the focal species on the WMA. Here are some examples I am personally familiar with...

I worked with UT DWR and a rancher to begin grazing on a WMA there in an effort to better sage grouse habitat for two main reasons. The DWR had done some seeding efforts on their lands, which were formerly school trust lands, that had been planted to crested wheatgrass in the past. The seedings were doing fairly well, but were still suffering from competition from the crested. We grazed these areas prior to green up through when the crested greened up, which there it does so earlier than the natives/seeded species. This was done in a rotational manner so that no pasture was used the same time in consecutive years. After only 2 years we started seeing an increase in vigor and amount of some of the seeded species, particularly forbs.

The habitat issues on the BLM portions of the WMA were very different. There were no seedings and the problem was too much sagebrush and not enough herbaceous cover/forage. The DWR provided a seed mix which the rancher broadcast into the brush in strips. Along these same strip he would feed hay to his cows. They were able to get their nutrition from the hay, but maintain their rumen mat from the previous years grass that was still standing. Along these feed rows, the cows would eat some of the sagebrush and the mechanical action of them feeding there broke, killed it. We estimated that we got about an 80+% kill rate of sagebrush in these strips. The seeded species came up well the first year and continued to fill in in subsequent years. The feed strips were moved every year, in effect giving us a mosiac of successional stages on the WMA. Though the DWR was a bit hesitant when the rancher and I pitched this idea, they were very happy with the response of both treatments after only two years.

I did a similar project in some livestock exclosures on riparian areas. The creeks in question are valuable to the DWR and Trout Unlimited since they contain pure strain Bonneville cuthroats. Prior to BOY and my involvement, they had fallen into disrepair and weren't really working as exclosure. We got the fences/gates fixed and after a few years the habitat improved greatly! But after a few more years the grass production and therefore the bug production declined. At the request of the DWR I worked with a grazing association to graze them for a short time during a specific time of year. One year later the grass was back to where the DWR wanted it for making bugs and keeping the water cooler (low gradient stream and very few willows/trees along the creek for shade).

Grazing in and of itself is not bad for wildlife. In a lot of cases they science is available to let you know how to manage it in an effort to alter the habitat through grazing so that it is better, however you define better. Long story short, I'm for it if it's done properly and for the right reasons.

PS- It appears I was typing as others were...

 

[JLS]

My concerns are how do the public and wildlife benefit from it?

A proper rest-rotational grazing system is highly beneficial to the wildlife. Take a look at the WMA's like Robb-Ledford, Wall Creek, and the Blacktail. There has been enough research to validate this practice, and all you have to do is take a look at any of these game ranges.

It is no secret that elk don't like to dig through heavy layers of rank grass to get green up. A proper system will do a short period of intensive grazing after the grasses are seed ripe so that this layer is periodically cleaned up. It makes the grass healthier, and easier for the elk to get to.

Drive up the Millegan Road sometime and look at Galt's ranch where it is nuclear grazed. The elk will flock into this area in the early spring because it is the first green up and the easiest to get to.

There are also plenty of private ranches in Montana that are prime examples of what a good grazing system can and will do for wildlife. As long as the riparian areas are managed well so there isn't streambank erosion and degradation it can be a win/win scenario for all.

 

[JLS]

Looks like we were all hitting this at once!

To directly answer 1 Pointers question, grazing used to be considered taboo on the WMAs. It quickly became apparent that the elk like the adjacent private lands better and were using them as winter range. Now, after years of rest-rotation grazing, the WMAs do a much better job of holding the elk during the winter.

 

[JLS]

One argument is that the cattle remove "decadent vegetation," but I don't know why cattle would feed on that when everything else is greening up.

One of the steps of a rotation is a short and intensive grazing period during late summer, after the grass is seed ripe. During the step, a lot of animals are put on a pasture for a shorter amount of time. They aren't able to "cherry pick" because there is more competition for the feed. As Buzz said, what they don't always eat they will trample in, along with the grass seeds.

 

[----]

Good stuff guys.

It's always bummed me out because one of my favorite archery spots get cattle put on it the third week of September most years, pushing the elk herd on to the adjacent private. Good to see it's likely beneficial though.

 

[1_pointer]

Looks like we were all hitting this at once!

To directly answer 1 Pointers question, grazing used to be considered taboo on the WMAs. It quickly became apparent that the elk like the adjacent private lands better and were using them as winter range. Now, after years of rest-rotation grazing, the WMAs do a much better job of holding the elk during the winter.

That's been my experience as well. Some ranches I worked with in UT said you knew where the elk were gonna be if you knew where the cows were a month earlier.

This same issue has shown up on the Book Cliffs. Elk have drastically changed where they hang out. Some are thinking it's mostly due to the fact that the bison are using different areas than the cattle they replaced. I haven't heard/read yet if this has had an impact on the overall population, but does appear to be changing the distribution of elk.

 

[RobG]

That's been my experience as well. Some ranches I worked with in UT said you knew where the elk were gonna be if you knew where the cows were a month earlier.

This same issue has shown up on the Book Cliffs. Elk have drastically changed where they hang out. Some are thinking it's mostly due to the fact that the bison are using different areas than the cattle they replaced. I haven't heard/read yet if this has had an impact on the overall population, but does appear to be changing the distribution of elk.

Where is the Book Cliffs and what is the history you refer too?

 

[1_pointer]

The Book Cliffs are in eastern Utah and run east into Colorado.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_Cliffs

In Utah, much of the Book Cliffs area is BLM. Not too long ago the cattle permits were retired by the BLM and bison (re)introduced by UT DWR. Area's that were once heavily used by elk now have very little elk use. Some of the folks I used to work with in UT think it's due to the fact that the bison are using very different areas than the cattle were, particularly riparian areas and meadow complexes. This has surprised some folks as they thought getting the cows out would increase elk use of these areas, but the opposite appears to have happened.

 

[RobG]

The Book Cliffs are in eastern Utah and run east into Colorado.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_Cliffs

In Utah, much of the Book Cliffs area is BLM. Not too long ago the cattle permits were retired by the BLM and bison (re)introduced by UT DWR. Area's that were once heavily used by elk now have very little elk use. Some of the folks I used to work with in UT think it's due to the fact that the bison are using very different areas than the cattle were, particularly riparian areas and meadow complexes. This has surprised some folks as they thought getting the cows out would increase elk use of these areas, but the opposite appears to have happened.

Sent you a PM...

I don't know anything about it, but it sounds the removal of cows could have increased the elk but the introduction of bison made it impossible to tell. I know bison can overuse an area too.

 

[1_pointer]

I think folks would like to think it could increase the elk. I don't have any info on the overall population. However, a professor from Utah State that I worked with is convinced the elk have changed the areas they use heavily based upon visits there before and after as well as some data he had.

 

[MThuntr]

Wow this is the most civil public grazing discussion I've seen in a very long time. I agree with livestock grazing on WMA especially when following a specific wildlife management prescription. It can easily be abused if not monitored. The initial data from studies in Central Montana is that the rest rotations that are developed for sage grouse (Sage Grouse Initiative) are being preferred by the birds over the ranches that are not following a rotation. Of course this is only 2 years of data.

Randy11, you might want to discuss the grazing rotation with the local adminstrating office and express concerns about grazing a pasture at the same time each year. The season of use should be rotated to encourage plant diversity and overal rangeland health. They may have to wait until the watershed plans expire before they make those types of changes.

 

[Glenn Hockett]

Rob, thanks for posting this thread. I recently completed a detailed review and critic of the FWP proposal to continue livestock use on the Fleecer WMA, which is an important elk winter range southwest of Butte. I did this on behalf of the Gallatin Wildlife Association as their volunteer president. I would be happy to email a copy to anyone who has an interest in reviewing the details.

While we have many concerns about livestock impacts to habitat and wildlife on our WMAs, here are the six main points of concern we raised regarding the Fleecer WMA livestock use proposal:

1. We asked FWP to issue a 3 year rather than 10 year permit. Wildlife planning rather than livestock management planning should be a priority on our WMAs.
2. We asked FWP to collect fair market value for any and all livestock use. FWP over the years has bartered away most of the livestock use on the Fleecer WMA in an exchange of use agreement with the permittee. I estimated this cost FWP about $222,975 over the years (1982-2012) depending on the grazing fee. They currently operate the livestock use program at a significant loss to sportsmen.
3. We asked FWP to substantially supplement the draft EA with appropriate scientific literature related to the adverse impacts of livestock use and the benefits of protection from livestock use. We provided at least 5 pages of relevant scientific information in our detailed letter.
4. We asked FWP to complete a benefit/cost analysis of the proposal including administration and personnel costs, which given the amount of time I spent commenting on the EA are likely substantial.
5. We asked FWP to drop the two livestock production objectives for this WMA (objectives 3 & 6, EA page 3) and add additional wildlife and habitat management objectives for mule deer, antelope and moose. They actually have an objective to “increase cattle grazing potential” on the WMA.
6. We asked FWP to complete a Wildlife Management Plan for the Fleecer WMA. We have been requesting Wildlife Management Plans rather than livestock management plans for our WMAs for years now and FWP still does not to our knowledge have one Wildlife Management Plan completed.

We would prefer FWP not subject the Fleecer WMA to livestock use impacts or at least move to a prescriptive livestock use program. In other words if there is a specific need for livestock to be on the WMA (as 1_pointer discussed from his experiences) what is it and what is the objective to be achieved. The one example on the Fleecer WMA is the use of livestock to remove decadent vegetation from an old exotic hay meadow (smooth brome) that is, as I understand it, essentially a monoculture. In my estimation, such a prescriptive action would only be needed every 5-6 years, perhaps even less.

Once again, I would be happy to share our detailed comment letter with anyone looking to learn more about this issue of livestock use of WMAs.

My email address is [email protected] or you can call me at 586-1729

Thanks,

Glenn Hockett

 

[jmcd]

The one place that I really have a problem with this is on the Robb-Ledford WMA. I have seen bighorn sheep on it several times, even have pics and video. There is also a rancher that runs thousands of domestic sheep on this WMA as well. I guess FWP must not remember what happened here in western Montana when domestic sheep and wild sheep interact... usually doesn't end up so good for the bighorns. I have heard through the grapevine that FWP does not want to know about these sheep..i guess they either don't want to have to manage this herd or just plain don't want wild sheep using this WMA. I have spoken with them several times about this and the last time they took public comments on the grazing lease I sent in some pics and video of the bighorns on the "wildlife" management area... they still issued the lease.

Those sheep likely came across the road from the Greenhorns. I've seen them too. I think as part of the original agreement before they were transplanted to the Greenhorns, they aren't supposed to leave. If they do they can be shot. I don't report them if I see them.

 

[theat]

Those sheep likely came across the road from the Greenhorns. I've seen them too. I think as part of the original agreement before they were transplanted to the Greenhorns, they aren't supposed to leave. If they do they can be shot. I don't report them if I see them.

So...wild sheep are not allowed to use a wildlife management area paid for with sportsmen's $, only domestic sheep allowed on the property?

If they do they are to be shot on sight?

Does this actually seem like the right way to manage a "WILDLIFE Management Area"?

Anyone have anymore info on this? It might be just the opportunity for me to get a Montana Ram without ever drawing a tag

 

[Mato]

what happens if the domestic sheep get off their property and onto another, do they get shot....grins