WY Feedground Lawsuit, Bridger-Teton NF

[jryoung]

Interesting to read some science on this issue, and the comments here. Just back from three days of Board of Directors Meetings for RMEF. Among the many different Board meetings/topcis, I got to read/listen to some expert opinions on the science of elk, nutrition, habitat, etc.

Some of it surprised me. Some of it related to this feed ground topic.

Science is showing that the greatest threat to elk nutrition is the lack of adequate nutrition on our summer ranges. That goes against all I was taught, but too many studies are showing that for me to deny it, even with my original biases that the constriction to ungulate survival was all about winter range.

In the Greater Yellowstone region, where much of the studies were done, summer nutritional values are not what they once were. Lactating cows have a greater nutritional need from June-August than they do in the winter. By a significant margin. That really surprised me. Since they are not getting the proper nutrition to recover, it is affecting calf survival, breeding cycles, and the ability for animals to get through the winter, even on the best winter range.

Unfortunately, it appears the vocal fringe that gains much support among hunters claims calf survival and low cow nutrition evidence is attributable to predators. The premise they provide is that predation is stressing cows/calves. Yet, the science has a hard time supporting that. The science does support that in the absence of excellent summer nutrition, nutritionally stressed cows/calves are at greater risk of the direct and indirect impacts of predation, but the predation is not the cause, rather an amplified effect.

And the problem with that is this. As hunters, we are taking our eye off the bigger goal. Yeah, we have to let the states manage these predators, but by focusing on strictly predators, hunters are allowing their most treasure resources struggle because we are making habitat and nutrition less of a priority. The next time some hunters tells me all elk problems are related to predators and that the habitat is in great condition, it will take a lot of restraint to not tell him how misinformed he is.

Much was discussed as to feed grounds in Wyoming. As to those feed grounds in WY, a some questions are unanswered; or maybe I should say, some projected outcomes result in differing opinions. Yet, these next two points seem to be universally accepted.

• Every biologist you talk to, just like most hunters, has some gut instinct that if we are feeding wildlife non-native feed in artificial conditions, something is wrong with the bigger picture. Yet, you get differing opinions as to what the NET difference will be to elk when you compare the scenarios of feed grounds v. no feed grounds.
  
• Every biologist agrees elk concentrate in the presence of feed grounds.
• Every biologist agrees that elk will concentrate in different areas, absent the feed grounds.
• Every biologist agrees that concentrations of wildlife, including elk, are at higher risk of a disease outbreak.

No argument by any of the biologists on those topics. Given that, I will take those items as facts.

Where the divergence starts is when you compare the models of disease risk in presence of feed grounds and the models of disease risk in the absence of feed grounds. I'll try to explain.

The management/policy decision comes down to what happens in each scenario; feed ground or no feed grounds. Since there are 23 feed grounds in Wyoming, there exists some pretty good data of what is happening with feed grounds on the landscape. The science shows where the elk are congregated, what they are eating, what their populations are, and samples of health and condition are taken regularly.

That's the easy part. Now, the hard part, and what causes the divergence of some professional opinions - What happens in the absence of feed grounds?

Some things they all seem to agree upon.

• First, elk will have a short-term drop in population levels as the summer range conditions are in bad shape and some elk will not be able to find the minimal nutrition to get through winter, absent feed grounds. Most seem to have the opinion that this will be a 2-5 year dip, before populations start to adjust.
  
• Second; disease, both brucellosis and CWD, is on the landscape near the WY feed grounds.
  
• Third; there will be high concentrations of elk in other areas of WY, even if the feed grounds do not exist. Everywhere Rocky Mountain Elk exist in harsh winters, there are areas of concentration where elk migrate/congregate for winter feeding and environmental benefit (less snow, warmer temps).

Then, there are some things that smart minds hold differing opinions on.

• First; where, and in what densities, the congregations of elk will exist if feed grounds were to be stopped.
  
• Second; what impact the diseases will have on elk herds that are congregated in other locations due to the feed grounds being shut down. Will the disease impacts be less, or be the same, or be worse in congregations all agree will still happen, absent the existence of feed grounds?

All agree that we do not have the data to answer those two points above. There are professional opinions, from respected biologists on both sides of the feed ground/no feed ground camps.

The problem lies in that we do not have science to know what happens in the absence of feed grounds in WY. Some will say we do, but we really don't, as WY started this feed ground program a long time ago and that results in incomplete data as to the situation of Wyoming elk on winter ranges that were void of feed grounds.

Some will say that we can use data from states without feed grounds, say MT. Some say we cannot use that data, as the situation is different, the maturity of diseases presence is different, etc.

Some will point that there is a lower incidence of brucellosis in states like MT that does not feed in the winter. True. Yet, others will point out that the acceleration in the rate of brucellosis prevalence in MT is greater than acceleration rate of prevalence on the feed grounds in WY, projecting that Montana will eventually reach a prevalence rate in their non-feed ground herds that is close to the brucellosis prevalence rate in the WY feed grounds.

Is that because brucellosis has been on the landscape in WY for decades longer than it has been on the landscape in MT? And as such, maybe it has grown to some level in WY that is leveling off, and eventually it will grow to the same rate of infection in MT, before leveling off there, also.

Again, the case can be made that due to the different conditions in states looked to for "no feed ground" models, it is hard to know what will happen in the absence of feed grounds.

I left with some questions answered for my mind.

1. Disease is present, and new diseases are coming to the elk herds of YNP, and thus will spread to the herds that migrate into WY, MT, and ID, whether WY has feed grounds or has no feed grounds.

2. There are a lot of agendas that are quick use the available science as support for their position, no matter the completeness of the science. The "no feed ground" agenda cannot provide good models of what will happen to elk in the absence of feed grounds. The "keep the feed grounds" agenda cannot deny that feed grounds will be a place with high levels of disease transmission.

3. These are the glory days of elk. In the event of continued fire suppression, the herds of elk we enjoy today will not have the adequate summer range nutrition to prosper. Lacking improvement of the vast tracts of public summer range, the large elk herds we enjoy today could soon follow a trend that we have seen in mule deer.

4. That smart minds, much smarter than me, can look at similar data and come to different conclusions or make different projections.

5. That hunters are attributing way too much of the localized elk issues on strictly predation, and as such, we are not focusing on the bigger issues that will make a true difference even with the presence of wolves, cats, bears. Yes, there are predation affects, but most every smart mind on the topic agrees that the localized impacts of predation is best mitigated by improvements to summer range.

I am not smart enough to make a decision, one way or the other, given the available data. Even with complete data sets for all scenarios, people much smarter than I will have to make the final projections as to the outcomes.

No matter the scientific outcome, the best thing hunters can do is to try isolate what is a scientific issue from what is a social/political issue. Interjecting the personal/social/political biases before complete science is available will taint the science that is being produced. I fear that may already be the case in much of this discussion. Just too many agendas already competing for the outcome that favors their interest.

We can all take away from this situation that fact that altered landscapes create a lot of management problems for elk and other wildlife. We can also take away that focus on habitat is going to do the greatest good for elk and wildlife, no matter what the decision is for the feed grounds in Wyoming. And, we can take comfort in knowing that a focus on improved summer range will have more benefit to elk than we once thought.

RMEF has done tons and tons of work in WY; most of it habitat work focused toward helping improve the native landscapes to allow elk to be less dependent upon the feed grounds. I would hope that no matter what side of the feed ground discussion you are on, you support improvement to the native landscapes in manners that help elk and other wildlife.

We have many challenges facing elk, some localized, some regional, some national. The biggest challenge we will face for elk is breaking the gridlock on land management policy that favors fire suppression and prevents the Forest Service and BLM from implementing other activities that could provide benefits to the condition of our summer ranges.

This should be a sticky, awesome post.

 

[BuzzH]

Cant really add much to the debate about the feed grounds. They were a bad idea started by people that meant well. Lots of things have changed since they were started, and the complexity of the issue is at an all-time high, for all kinds of reasons.

I'm also skeptical that the best way to address the issue is through litigation. Leaving important decisions on issues like this in the hands of judges leaves the door open for any number of potential outcomes, many of which are not going to be in the best interest of wildlife. IMO, litigation should be a last resort, not the first step in trying to address these issues. We're really out nothing if we try to address/settle these issues informally FIRST, before we hire attorneys, and get the courts involved.

That said, I did recently read this article, which was in the latest issue of Wyoming Wildlife regarding some CWD research that has been conducted.

The full article is found here:

http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/news-1002147.aspx

CHEYENNE - A ten-year study conducted by the University of Wyoming and the Wyoming Game and Fish Department suggests that the effects of chronic wasting disease (CWD) on elk populations may not be as devastating as once believed.

Research has shown that genes play a role in elk susceptibility to CWD. Some elk have genes that prolong the time between exposure to the CWD prion, the infectious agent of CWD, and the onset of the disease. These genes become dominant over many decades, greatly reducing the impact of CWD on the population. Elk with these genes live longer even when heavily exposed to CWD and therefore have more opportunity to reproduce than elk with other genes.

 

[katqanna]

There was already litigation concerning the feedgrounds, in which the judge stated that the feedgrounds had to be closed but set no time for that to be achieved so they have been dragging their heels. WWP was not part of the first lawsuit.

Lloyd Dorsey of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, the major voice and watchdog for brucellosis and CWD in Wyoming has been fired by the Greater Yellowstone Coalition and his position retired so he will not be replaced. Dont get me started on how sh*tty this is and my opinions of the GYC in general or all manner of expletives will flow. Especially after I called them last spring about our own elk brucellosis situation here in Montana. With CWD due in the feedgrounds this year, I dont think this is a coincidence.

In Randy's good write up, he mentioned, "Yet, others will point out that the acceleration in the rate of brucellosis prevalence in MT is greater than acceleration rate of prevalence on the feed grounds in WY, projecting that Montana will eventually reach a prevalence rate in their non-feed ground herds that is close to the brucellosis prevalence rate in the WY feed grounds." There is a reason for that, which I have been working on in between meetings for the last couple of weeks and have been working on the graphics for the last couple of days.

Southern Montana does have a brucellosis breeding Wyoming feedground, minus the feeding in Gardiner and a wee bit in West Yellowstone. It is not the act of feeding that is increasing brucellosis, that simply is the dinner bell that cause unnatural congregation of the elk. What is causing the increased brucellosis seroprevalence at feedgrounds, about 10-30%, versus elsewhere at 2-3%, is the fact that the unnatural congregation in late winter and spring are the time periods of abortions and abortions at a feedground are going to mean increased ingestion and inhalation opportunities of larger number of elk of infected materials (abortions).

We have the same setting here in Montana with the hundreds of concentrated Native American gut piles, which include nearly born calves, from January to the end of March, the worst infective time period, in a bottle necked area of about 1/4 of a mile that is a wildlife corridor, acting just like the abortions at the WY feedgrounds. Seroprevalence of bison is about 50%. Of that they estimate that 30% is culture positive. All bison and elk around those piles doing what they naturally do, sniffing, licking and ingesting grass where birthing materials and fluids have been will become infected from the culture positive piles. And the DOL is turning a blind eye to this because they want more bison killed, which is why the Native American treaty hunts were included in the IBMP process, to take more bison at a time of year that Montana hunters could not due to third trimester pregnancies - also the most infectious time if they have brucellosis.

 

[1_pointer]

Sounds like a good time to fire up the dozers and drip torches! Then keep them running all year!

I'd be interested in the RMEF bio's opinions on how mule deer would be impacted by improving the summer range to meet the needs of elk. I'm guessing the deer wouldn't like it as much...

 

[Big Fin]

Sounds like a good time to fire up the dozers and drip torches! Then keep them running all year!

I'd be interested in the RMEF bio's opinions on how mule deer would be impacted by improving the summer range to meet the needs of elk. I'm guessing the deer wouldn't like it as much...

From what my little pea brain can absorb from the smart people, it seems elk have benefited from the succession stages that seem to be detrimental to mule deer, though much summer range is now in a succession stage that is going to pass beyond their benefit to elk.

I'm all in favor of dozers and drop torches.

 

[jryoung]

Randy, how much of the discussion surrounding vegetation was leveraged from the Bitterroot Study? I was just reading the 2014 Spring Report http://fwp.mt.gov/fwpDoc.html?id=63993 and it sounds as if much of the vegetation data is still be analyzed and it may be sometime before detailed conclusions are drawn.

I'm anxious to see where this goes when the results of the forage part of this study are combined with the results of the Absaroka Ecology Project. Tough for me to understand many of the nuances without a science based background, but fascinating to read none the less.

It get's more fun/frustrating when you layer on the political/social components of predators and climate change.

 

[Big Fin]

Randy, how much of the discussion surrounding vegetation was leveraged from the Bitterroot Study? I was just reading the 2014 Spring Report http://fwp.mt.gov/fwpDoc.html?id=63993 and it sounds as if much of the vegetation data is still be analyzed and it may be sometime before detailed conclusions are drawn.

I'm anxious to see where this goes when the results of the forage part of this study are combined with the results of the Absaroka Ecology Project. Tough for me to understand many of the nuances without a science based background, but fascinating to read none the less.

It get's more fun/frustrating when you layer on the political/social components of predators and climate change.

Some of the discussion comes from what that study will show, though the most recent and most compelling is from the Absaroka Study. RMEF has been putting funding toward many studies. RMEF also has been funding a lot of research at the Starkey Experimental Station that has been been pointing towards this concern.

Recent studies seem to confirms some findings in older studies, as it relates to the importance of summer ranges. And what has become obvious to me, in listening to concerns of smart people, is that we more study on the issue will probably provide some really good science to the benefit of elk.

Like you, I don't have a science background, so what you are getting from me is the interpretation of discussions with smart people, though the eyes of a person trained as a CPA. From that, I gather that the smart people think this summer range stuff has been discounted in the conventional thinking of elk needs, and if they had their choice, more research would be done to confirm or reject a lot of what has been learned about summer range nutrition in these other studies.

 

[RobG]

Brucellosis?? Oh yes the disease we've been dealing with in elk and bison for about how long? Seems like forever to me. The disease that decimates herds, but never does. The disease that is transmitted from one animal to another by contacting afterbirth? Yes, that's right, afterbirth! Oh, better mention that cow elk give birth in May OFF of the feedground.

Other people know much more about this than me, but I don't hear people saying that Brucellosis decimates the elk herds - it causes huge problems with the ranching industry (which of course causes blowback to our elk). It also can be transmitted to hunters (as undulant fever) on later hunts (say February onward) - there are two confirmed cases, both from Madison county, MT.

It is a strange disease - it lies idle most of the time but the infected animals become very contagious when pregnant. If infected, it is likely they abort their first calf. After that, it isn't clear if they continue to abort. A key thing is that this abortive tissue is very contagious and they abort their calves before the calving season in May - while they are still on the feedground.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Those feedgrounds face another issue: They're legislatively mandated wildlife management.

If you really want to shut down elk feeding in WY< forcing it off of Federal Public Land is only one option. WGFD has a legal mandate to feed elk, so, expect them to move to state or WGFD property only if they're eliminated through lawsuit.

As recently as last session in WY, Ag stood up very strongly when it came to funding those feedgrounds with license dollars. When an eastern WY legislators looked at the numbers and saw they didn't pencil out, he was going to move on eliminating the program. Ag lobbyists quickly let him know that his prognostication wasn't welcome.

 

[JM77]

" A key thing is that this abortive tissue is very contagious and they abort their calves before the calving season in May - while they are still on the feedground.[/QUOTE]

On that point I stand corrected.

 

[RobertR]

I knew from the beginning this had everything to do with ranchers and cattle if Travis Bruner was involved.
If you support agriculture in any sense don't help WWP. This is the latest in the law suit.
http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2014...-project-not-backing-down-in-wyoming-lawsuit/

 

[Nameless Range]

Really interesting comments. I have to ask something in reference to Randy's comment though. I don't take a side either way, but I can imagine those who do would ask:

If the current nature of Land Management Policies are such a great challenge to the future of Elk, why are we currently living in the hayday of Elk, when those policies have been the status quo for quite some time now? We have been putting fires out as fast as we can identify them for over 50 years, and litigation has ground active management to a halt for pretty much the last 20+ years.

I get that correlation is not causation. But if the way we are managing the land is not attributable to our current robust Elk populations, then what primarily is? Obviously different geographic regions are very dynamic and so the reasons may vary, but what management policy. wildlife or land, is the main reason?

 

[Deleted member 16014]

Western Watersheds Project likely has little care about the landscape impacts of elk feedgrounds. However, if they can reduce or eliminate elk feeding it will effectively pit livestock operators and sportsmen against one another. Look for the same deal coming from WWP directed toward feedgrounds adjacent to or partially on BLM lands.

On the brucellosis/biology front, a local biologist and colleague has a paper out for editing that should shed some light on the issue in terms of what strategies have proven useful or not. I will post it here upon publication, though it'll be a bit yet.