MT ranchers want elk culled
- Thread starter Oak
- Start date
BuzzH
Well-known member
Just another classic example of the cattle industry doing what they do best.
They'll get a battle on this one.
They'll get a battle on this one.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
With the elk population already on the ropes in some area's in and around Yellowstone, you'd think cooler heads will prevail here. Moronic people do exist though in levels of the Government that have power to pull the strings.
They want to do for the elk, what they've done for the Bison.
Just a thought, wouldn't it be easier to just buy out the Ranchers that have land that elk migrate to rather than keep subsidising them?
They want to do for the elk, what they've done for the Bison.
Just a thought, wouldn't it be easier to just buy out the Ranchers that have land that elk migrate to rather than keep subsidising them?
Nemont
Well-known member
I doubt that the ranchers will get this one through. They will have to fight each other and the powerful Outfitting industry.
Nemont
Nemont
Tom
New member
"Eradicated everywhere else in the nation, brucellosis surfaced seven times in the Yellowstone area this decade, including twice since mid-June."
If its been eradicated other places, why can't it be eradicated at Yellowstone?
If its been eradicated other places, why can't it be eradicated at Yellowstone?
Bambistew
Well-known member
A large percentage of the wild bison and elk populations in the park have the disease. The disease can live in the soil for something like 7-8 years.
I don't think there has ever been a documented case of transmission between elk and cattle? Has there? It makes ya wonder how it can be eradicated everywhere in the US but the areas around Jellystone if it can't be transmitted between the two.
I don't think there will be a resolution that sportsman will like. Hunters in general are selfish people, they expect landowners to raise and take care of their animals, and then also expect the rancher to give them a free pass to those animals. For the most part the only thing sportsman do is pay their piddly fee for their elk tag and think they are owed something.
The thing about this article that makes me scratch my head... John Scully is hardly a rancher... A landowner who doesn’t' allow hunting on his 600 acres of river bottom that’s infested with whitetail deer yes, but a rancher? I don't think he even owns a cow. The closest I've ever seen an elk to his property is about 3 miles.
Secondly, the ranchers in the valley where instrumental in getting a SECOND elk tag in the hands of sportsman. Ya know that extra tag that Buzz talks about so much.
IMO the main problem is not so much with the working/family ranches but with the ranches that are leased for outfitting or hobby farms owned by the rich. I'd say about 1/3 of the valley is currently open to hunting, 1/3 is leased to outfitters and the rest is off limits.
I know most of the family ranchers in the valley, and have hunted with most of them at one time or another. They aren't against wildlife by any means. 5-6 years ago they formed a coalition called the Madison Valley Ranchlands group, basically as a way to join together and try and preserve their way of life. One of the things they did was convince the F&G to give out additional cow tags for the valley that would only be good for private land. As far as I know every rancher in the group allows elk hunting on their property if they have any to hunt.
I guess I can't grasp the mentality that its the landowners/ranchers responsibility to raise and care for the publics wildlife with out any sort of compensation. How is it any diffrent if say... the county or city decided to turn your front lawn into a public parking lot?
Also allowing hunting isn’t an instant fix and often creates more problems than its worth.
The F&G did away with the late hunt a couple years ago, which shouldn't have happened... but it got to the point that most of the ranches in the upper end of the valley (read rich assholes) wouldn’t allow hunting, where as 15-20 years ago a guy could get on to hunt just about any of those ranches with nothing more than a phone call
The elk don't show up on the private until after the regular season is over, not to mention all the park elk that migrate into the valley don't show up until after the season is over either. So how do you control a population that can't be hunted during the regular season? Do you kill off all the 'native' elk and hope the migratory ones take their spot?
Even if the ranchers let any hunter that wanted to hunt on their property during the season, it doesn't take the elk long to figure out if they jump that fence 200 yards away they can stay there all season long and not worry about being shot at.
The elk also have changed their habits, be it from the wolves, or less hunting pressure or a combination? Either way there are hundreds more of them on the flats/private ground now than I can ever remember, I’m not sure if the overall population is the same or not, but the ones you can visibly see on a regular basis is considerably higher than it used to be.
There’s a resident herd of about 6-700 that spends 9-10 months a year on the flat just east of Ennis, and has lived there for the last 6-7 years or more. When I was a kid the only elk we'd see on the flat was in the middle of winter, and it had to be a cold and snowy, even then they'd only stay for a week or two before going back up to the base of the mountain, and back on the public land. Now there are probably 1500-2000 that spend most of the winter on the flats and private ground. Its not like it was something the ranchers have been living with for ever, its a fairly new situation.
I don't think there has ever been a documented case of transmission between elk and cattle? Has there? It makes ya wonder how it can be eradicated everywhere in the US but the areas around Jellystone if it can't be transmitted between the two.
I don't think there will be a resolution that sportsman will like. Hunters in general are selfish people, they expect landowners to raise and take care of their animals, and then also expect the rancher to give them a free pass to those animals. For the most part the only thing sportsman do is pay their piddly fee for their elk tag and think they are owed something.
The thing about this article that makes me scratch my head... John Scully is hardly a rancher... A landowner who doesn’t' allow hunting on his 600 acres of river bottom that’s infested with whitetail deer yes, but a rancher? I don't think he even owns a cow. The closest I've ever seen an elk to his property is about 3 miles.
Secondly, the ranchers in the valley where instrumental in getting a SECOND elk tag in the hands of sportsman. Ya know that extra tag that Buzz talks about so much.
IMO the main problem is not so much with the working/family ranches but with the ranches that are leased for outfitting or hobby farms owned by the rich. I'd say about 1/3 of the valley is currently open to hunting, 1/3 is leased to outfitters and the rest is off limits.
I know most of the family ranchers in the valley, and have hunted with most of them at one time or another. They aren't against wildlife by any means. 5-6 years ago they formed a coalition called the Madison Valley Ranchlands group, basically as a way to join together and try and preserve their way of life. One of the things they did was convince the F&G to give out additional cow tags for the valley that would only be good for private land. As far as I know every rancher in the group allows elk hunting on their property if they have any to hunt.
I guess I can't grasp the mentality that its the landowners/ranchers responsibility to raise and care for the publics wildlife with out any sort of compensation. How is it any diffrent if say... the county or city decided to turn your front lawn into a public parking lot?
Also allowing hunting isn’t an instant fix and often creates more problems than its worth.
The F&G did away with the late hunt a couple years ago, which shouldn't have happened... but it got to the point that most of the ranches in the upper end of the valley (read rich assholes) wouldn’t allow hunting, where as 15-20 years ago a guy could get on to hunt just about any of those ranches with nothing more than a phone call
The elk don't show up on the private until after the regular season is over, not to mention all the park elk that migrate into the valley don't show up until after the season is over either. So how do you control a population that can't be hunted during the regular season? Do you kill off all the 'native' elk and hope the migratory ones take their spot?
Even if the ranchers let any hunter that wanted to hunt on their property during the season, it doesn't take the elk long to figure out if they jump that fence 200 yards away they can stay there all season long and not worry about being shot at.
The elk also have changed their habits, be it from the wolves, or less hunting pressure or a combination? Either way there are hundreds more of them on the flats/private ground now than I can ever remember, I’m not sure if the overall population is the same or not, but the ones you can visibly see on a regular basis is considerably higher than it used to be.
There’s a resident herd of about 6-700 that spends 9-10 months a year on the flat just east of Ennis, and has lived there for the last 6-7 years or more. When I was a kid the only elk we'd see on the flat was in the middle of winter, and it had to be a cold and snowy, even then they'd only stay for a week or two before going back up to the base of the mountain, and back on the public land. Now there are probably 1500-2000 that spend most of the winter on the flats and private ground. Its not like it was something the ranchers have been living with for ever, its a fairly new situation.
Tom
New member
"Experts estimate only a small percentage carry brucellosis." is in the first post article.
Are you talking about the same disease there Bambistew where you claim most animals have it?
Are you talking about the same disease there Bambistew where you claim most animals have it?
Bambistew
Well-known member
I'm not sure of the exact percentages, but its much higher than any other herd in the US, small percentage or not. I think its pretty difficult to nail down the exact number because animals can have it and not show symptoms. The number that I remember seeing for elk was about 7% infection rate causing abortion, and buffalo was a little lower, but they seem more resistant to it. I'm not sure...
The problem is once an animal aborts, or even gives birth. The bacteria in the birth fluids can live in the soil for 7-8 years after, and any animal that comes in contact with it can become infected. Supposely something like 60% of the buffalo in the park have been exposed.
The problem is once an animal aborts, or even gives birth. The bacteria in the birth fluids can live in the soil for 7-8 years after, and any animal that comes in contact with it can become infected. Supposely something like 60% of the buffalo in the park have been exposed.
Bambistew
Well-known member
Everything you always wanted to know about Brucellosis.
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=5957
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=5957
Tom
New member
Oh, ok, "large" percentage, small percentage, that's open to interpretation.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Some would like to use this issue as a wedge between sportsmen and livestock producers. Here is a little more balanced opinion that dovetails with Bambi's comments.
Montana must avoid Big Brother approach to controlling brucellosis
By HUGO TURECK
While no conclusive evidence exists that the latest positive (brucellosis) test in Paradise Valley has come from either bison or elk, that has not stopped those who would either privatize or kill off wildlife species such as bison and elk from our public landscape rather than work to find an equitable solution for all involved.
Let’s explore what’s really happening with elk, open spaces, brucellosis and the Yellowstone area.
Changing land ownership patterns, the loss of traditional access for hunters on private lands that were once open and changing herd dynamics due to wolves and other predators, have shown us that elk are now wintering more frequently on private lands that are closed to public hunting in Montana. “Harboring” has become a huge issue in the management of elk herds in a manner that benefits both livestock and wildlife. The mantra of “too many elk” is not founded in the science of wildlife management, but in the social tolerance of a few landowners. What is playing out now is that new landowners who do not allow access, do not consider the impacts to neighboring landowners, lease their lands to commercial hunting interests exclusively, or refuse to work with Fish, Wildlife and Parks only to end up harboring large concentrations of elk in what essentially become feed grounds.
Twenty-three feed grounds not far from the southern border of Yellowstone, including the National Elk Refuge, are unnaturally concentrating elk, and increasing the seroprevalence rates in Wyoming elk. To further complicate the issue, wild elk herds on the east side of Yellowstone are showing increased seroprevalence rates. While there is no easy solution to the feed ground issue in Wyoming, and it is the job of Wyoming to manage its own wildlife, it is clear that concentrating elk unnaturally is a sure way to increase brucellosis in elk.
Montana, as well as Wyoming and Idaho, must find a way to move away from the Big Brother approach of federal bureaucracies like Animal and Health Inspection Service, and come up with some solutions that do not jeopardize our incredibly important wildlife, and our equally important livestock industry. APHIS n back when pasteurization of milk was not widespread, electricity was only in cities and Henry Ford was still putting out Model As n devised a rule that said brucellosis must be eradicated from America. At the time, it was a sensible rule. Real human health concerns existed from contracting undulant fever. That philosophy has not been updated in over 70 years. It is what drives the actions of APHIS, and it drives those who would decimate public wildlife for a solution to a nonexistent problem.
It’s time APHIS recognizes what the state of Montana, livestock producers, wildlife advocates and hunters know too well, that the system is broken. It’s time to go back to the drawing board and find new solutions that do not require massive depopulations of wildlife, or that would turn Montana’s treasured public wildlife herds in to private herds for commercial interests.
Montana must focus on research to develop a vaccine that is effective in eliminating the disease in cattle, ensure that elk do not congregate on amenity ranches, and focus on minimizing co-mingling of elk and cattle. Trying to vaccinate wildlife is a pipe dream that is irresponsible to both livestock producers and wildlife enthusiasts.
Solving this issue is going to require an investment by the Legislature. It’s going to require new legislation focusing on the harboring of wildlife, helping landowners minimize exposure to wildlife through fencing and herd management plans; it will require funding for testing of cattle both inside and outside the risk area and for aggressive efforts to develop a more effective cattle vaccine, and it’s going to require the federal government to step up to the plate and act like it’s in the 21st century, instead of driving around in that Model A Ford.
Livestock producers should not bear the full brunt of the cost to keep their herds free of brucellosis. At the same time, the burden of outdated rules and regulations must not be shouldered by wildlife and hunters.
Hugo Tureck is an associate director for the Montana Wildlife Federation’s Region 4, and writes from Coffee Creek.
Montana must avoid Big Brother approach to controlling brucellosis
By HUGO TURECK
While no conclusive evidence exists that the latest positive (brucellosis) test in Paradise Valley has come from either bison or elk, that has not stopped those who would either privatize or kill off wildlife species such as bison and elk from our public landscape rather than work to find an equitable solution for all involved.
Let’s explore what’s really happening with elk, open spaces, brucellosis and the Yellowstone area.
Changing land ownership patterns, the loss of traditional access for hunters on private lands that were once open and changing herd dynamics due to wolves and other predators, have shown us that elk are now wintering more frequently on private lands that are closed to public hunting in Montana. “Harboring” has become a huge issue in the management of elk herds in a manner that benefits both livestock and wildlife. The mantra of “too many elk” is not founded in the science of wildlife management, but in the social tolerance of a few landowners. What is playing out now is that new landowners who do not allow access, do not consider the impacts to neighboring landowners, lease their lands to commercial hunting interests exclusively, or refuse to work with Fish, Wildlife and Parks only to end up harboring large concentrations of elk in what essentially become feed grounds.
Twenty-three feed grounds not far from the southern border of Yellowstone, including the National Elk Refuge, are unnaturally concentrating elk, and increasing the seroprevalence rates in Wyoming elk. To further complicate the issue, wild elk herds on the east side of Yellowstone are showing increased seroprevalence rates. While there is no easy solution to the feed ground issue in Wyoming, and it is the job of Wyoming to manage its own wildlife, it is clear that concentrating elk unnaturally is a sure way to increase brucellosis in elk.
Montana, as well as Wyoming and Idaho, must find a way to move away from the Big Brother approach of federal bureaucracies like Animal and Health Inspection Service, and come up with some solutions that do not jeopardize our incredibly important wildlife, and our equally important livestock industry. APHIS n back when pasteurization of milk was not widespread, electricity was only in cities and Henry Ford was still putting out Model As n devised a rule that said brucellosis must be eradicated from America. At the time, it was a sensible rule. Real human health concerns existed from contracting undulant fever. That philosophy has not been updated in over 70 years. It is what drives the actions of APHIS, and it drives those who would decimate public wildlife for a solution to a nonexistent problem.
It’s time APHIS recognizes what the state of Montana, livestock producers, wildlife advocates and hunters know too well, that the system is broken. It’s time to go back to the drawing board and find new solutions that do not require massive depopulations of wildlife, or that would turn Montana’s treasured public wildlife herds in to private herds for commercial interests.
Montana must focus on research to develop a vaccine that is effective in eliminating the disease in cattle, ensure that elk do not congregate on amenity ranches, and focus on minimizing co-mingling of elk and cattle. Trying to vaccinate wildlife is a pipe dream that is irresponsible to both livestock producers and wildlife enthusiasts.
Solving this issue is going to require an investment by the Legislature. It’s going to require new legislation focusing on the harboring of wildlife, helping landowners minimize exposure to wildlife through fencing and herd management plans; it will require funding for testing of cattle both inside and outside the risk area and for aggressive efforts to develop a more effective cattle vaccine, and it’s going to require the federal government to step up to the plate and act like it’s in the 21st century, instead of driving around in that Model A Ford.
Livestock producers should not bear the full brunt of the cost to keep their herds free of brucellosis. At the same time, the burden of outdated rules and regulations must not be shouldered by wildlife and hunters.
Hugo Tureck is an associate director for the Montana Wildlife Federation’s Region 4, and writes from Coffee Creek.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Bambistew said,
"I guess I can't grasp the mentality that its the landowners/ranchers responsibility to raise and care for the publics wildlife with out any sort of compensation."
They arent owed a thing. I'll tell you why, the wildlife is part of doing business, its been there forever and if they cant accept that wildlife lives on their place...tough. They know it, knew it, and have no reason to whine. Its like living on a golf course and having a window taken out from time to time by golf balls...no big surprise and you shouldnt get compensated for it. Further, any rancher that leases anything from the feds or state...really dont have anything to whine about. We'll call it even since they use my public deer and elk feed, as well as my public lands all summer.
Further, this issue should NOT be about the publics wildlife. Wildlife did not bring brucellosis to Montana...cattle did. Its a cattle problem, not a wildlife problem. So, using your very logic, why do the cattlemen think they're owed the right to wipe out elk because they THINK that elk could possibly, maybe potentially, pass it to their cattle.
Let the ranchers take care of the mess...but leave the publics wildlife alone...that isnt the problem.
"I guess I can't grasp the mentality that its the landowners/ranchers responsibility to raise and care for the publics wildlife with out any sort of compensation."
They arent owed a thing. I'll tell you why, the wildlife is part of doing business, its been there forever and if they cant accept that wildlife lives on their place...tough. They know it, knew it, and have no reason to whine. Its like living on a golf course and having a window taken out from time to time by golf balls...no big surprise and you shouldnt get compensated for it. Further, any rancher that leases anything from the feds or state...really dont have anything to whine about. We'll call it even since they use my public deer and elk feed, as well as my public lands all summer.
Further, this issue should NOT be about the publics wildlife. Wildlife did not bring brucellosis to Montana...cattle did. Its a cattle problem, not a wildlife problem. So, using your very logic, why do the cattlemen think they're owed the right to wipe out elk because they THINK that elk could possibly, maybe potentially, pass it to their cattle.
Let the ranchers take care of the mess...but leave the publics wildlife alone...that isnt the problem.
Bambistew
Well-known member
Actually if a golf ball breaks a window you can make the 'hitter' pay for it if you catch them. Can’t think of a single course I’ve played on where that’s not the case.
Not to get too far off on a tangent, but what it comes down to; the more animals are concentrated the higher the risk of disease transmission. Regardless of the private land/cattle issue, it seems to make sense that dispersing the animals has a significant impact on how many contract the disease.
Sure the wildlife has been there, but never in the numbers seen today. I think most all ranchers can live with an acceptable amount of wildlife, but the concentrations we are seeing these days is unacceptable to most. Funny thing about this is, when the wolf topics are brought up, 3 comments you constantly state include: all most every unit in the SW part of the state is over objective, hunters can get a second elk tag, and extremely high success rates. Seems like even you understand that that there are too many animals, yet when ranchers say there are too many they’re wrong?
There are elk that live on private land year round now, where as they used to pass through on a 1-2 week “winter vacation” but not every year. I don’t see how that is living there "forever". There was very few whitetail deer in the valley 40 years ago, now I'd bet there are well over 2500 living on the river if not more. I’ve counted over 400 in one afternoon within a 3 mile radius of my parents place. The elk numbers seem to have stabilized in the last 10 years or so, but there are still more than there should be according to YOU and the Fish and Game.
I have a history book of the valley; in it is a chapter on game numbers in the valley circa 1870. First settlers in the valley showed up in 1864 IIRC, and at that time Madison County was about 5-6 times the size it is today, and there was about 3000 people living there... The only animals that were in ‘abundance’ at that time were grasshoppers and black bears. Very few elk remained after the market hunters killed them the buffalo off. There was no mention of whitetail deer at all, and moose were virtually unheard of … So at what point in your time line does “forever” start? Before the market HUNTERS killed them off and ranchers moved in? Should we predate white settlers, how about we go back further to before elk where in North America… We have to start somewhere right?
According to this article ‘forever’ isn’t even 16 years ago. A 44-77% increase in 16 years seems like they might have a problem don’t you think?
http://fwp.mt.gov/mtoutdoors/HTML/articles/2007/ElkManagement.htm
If your house gets infested with mice... I don't want you to kill them. They're "my" mice and you should have to deal with it, they were there before you.
Not to get too far off on a tangent, but what it comes down to; the more animals are concentrated the higher the risk of disease transmission. Regardless of the private land/cattle issue, it seems to make sense that dispersing the animals has a significant impact on how many contract the disease.
Sure the wildlife has been there, but never in the numbers seen today. I think most all ranchers can live with an acceptable amount of wildlife, but the concentrations we are seeing these days is unacceptable to most. Funny thing about this is, when the wolf topics are brought up, 3 comments you constantly state include: all most every unit in the SW part of the state is over objective, hunters can get a second elk tag, and extremely high success rates. Seems like even you understand that that there are too many animals, yet when ranchers say there are too many they’re wrong?
There are elk that live on private land year round now, where as they used to pass through on a 1-2 week “winter vacation” but not every year. I don’t see how that is living there "forever". There was very few whitetail deer in the valley 40 years ago, now I'd bet there are well over 2500 living on the river if not more. I’ve counted over 400 in one afternoon within a 3 mile radius of my parents place. The elk numbers seem to have stabilized in the last 10 years or so, but there are still more than there should be according to YOU and the Fish and Game.
I have a history book of the valley; in it is a chapter on game numbers in the valley circa 1870. First settlers in the valley showed up in 1864 IIRC, and at that time Madison County was about 5-6 times the size it is today, and there was about 3000 people living there... The only animals that were in ‘abundance’ at that time were grasshoppers and black bears. Very few elk remained after the market hunters killed them the buffalo off. There was no mention of whitetail deer at all, and moose were virtually unheard of … So at what point in your time line does “forever” start? Before the market HUNTERS killed them off and ranchers moved in? Should we predate white settlers, how about we go back further to before elk where in North America… We have to start somewhere right?
According to this article ‘forever’ isn’t even 16 years ago. A 44-77% increase in 16 years seems like they might have a problem don’t you think?
http://fwp.mt.gov/mtoutdoors/HTML/articles/2007/ElkManagement.htm
If your house gets infested with mice... I don't want you to kill them. They're "my" mice and you should have to deal with it, they were there before you.
MNHunter
Well-known member
How can that be? All I hear on MM is that the wolves killed every elk in the west. You telling me there are some left???
Nemont
Well-known member
Buzz,
The challenge is that losing the Brucellosis free status costs the livestock industry millions of dollars in lost revenue, in addition is will take millions more to regain that status. If these cases didn't result from exposure to infected elk or bison then where did it come from? Why is that the cases came from an area that is near the park where it is known to exist in the wild.
It doesn't matter where the disease came from, that would be like not fighting a leafy spurge invasion because it came over with grain seed from Russia. That isn't rational nor is an elk culling operation.
There is a common sense way to go about solving the issue but as usual the foes: The buffalo hippies and ranchers are too dug in to give an inch. That way we can battle it out in court.
Why should cattle ranchers in Hill, Blaine, Phillips, Valley and Roosevelt counties lose their brucellosis free status because YNP and surround area have a resevior of brucellosis? There has to be more flexibility within the rules.
Nemont
The challenge is that losing the Brucellosis free status costs the livestock industry millions of dollars in lost revenue, in addition is will take millions more to regain that status. If these cases didn't result from exposure to infected elk or bison then where did it come from? Why is that the cases came from an area that is near the park where it is known to exist in the wild.
It doesn't matter where the disease came from, that would be like not fighting a leafy spurge invasion because it came over with grain seed from Russia. That isn't rational nor is an elk culling operation.
There is a common sense way to go about solving the issue but as usual the foes: The buffalo hippies and ranchers are too dug in to give an inch. That way we can battle it out in court.
Why should cattle ranchers in Hill, Blaine, Phillips, Valley and Roosevelt counties lose their brucellosis free status because YNP and surround area have a resevior of brucellosis? There has to be more flexibility within the rules.
Nemont
Similar threads
