Wyoming GFD or the Governor

[Deleted member 18333]

Yeah, it's complicated, but it's not complicated because there aren't better alternatives. It's complicated because of politics & Wyopming refusing to allow their G&F to find better solutions. This bill furthers that dynamic.

Sure there are alternatives but I think the argument comes from the question of are those alternatives really better. Regardless of which direction the feedgrounds go there is going to be a consequence some positive some negative. Sounds remarkably similar to what we have now. Its going to be hard to convince most people that those inflated herds need to be deflated by starvation so that we can keep them from dying from disease.

I'm open to listening to alternatives but I have yet to hear an alternative that does anything other than shift the positives and negative around.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Sure there are alternatives but I think the argument comes from the question of are those alternatives really better. Regardless of which direction the feedgrounds go there is going to be a consequence some positive some negative. Sounds remarkably similar to what we have now. Its going to be hard to convince most people that those inflated herds need to be deflated by starvation so that we can keep them from dying from disease.

I'm open to listening to alternatives but I have yet to hear an alternative that does anything other than shift the positives and negative around.

MT went the opposite direction of WY by establishing winter ranges through the creation of Wildlife Management Areas. That's a proven alternative in terms of overall heard health & distribution of elk in most cases. Conservation easements, managed hunting with an eye towards dispersal, etc all could be put in place over feedgrounds, but the reality is: Landowners love having those herds out of haystacks, and I don't blame them, but it's creating problems beyond elk eating hay.

WY damage payments would skyrocket if the feedgrounds went away, and that would probably break the G&F's budget, so it's a catch 22. And there's little political will to change the system, so it's just going to keep being a mess.

 

[shootbrownelk]

If this decision goes to Governor Gordon, what ever the ranchers want will prevail. Count on it. Agriculture rules the roost in Wyoming.

 

[Deleted member 16014]

Something that I think gets lost sometimes is how different the landscapes are where the feedgrounds exist. You get rid of some on the east slope of the WY range and there is a significant amount of quality winter range available. Not to say there wouldn't be conflicts but there is at least habitable terrain with a forage resource. Compare to the Upper Green and Bondurant, where winters are heavy enough on most years that there is not an available forage source to winter herds of elk. Totally different landscape. I am certain that there are herds where fitness, fecundity, and eventually populations themselves would drop. There are others where I don't think that much would change. It would require a complete re-working of season structure, tag allotments, etc. for many general areas that would take some time to get right.

To throw another wrench in the whole thing...the east slope of the WY range and west slope of the Winds have a substantive amount of potential elk winter habitat. Overlay the mule deer migration data and it's a match. I feel it's very likely that turning elk loose will have a negative effect on the available habitat for wintering and migrating deer, through social displacement and forage use both. Elk can make use of a much wider range of winter forages than deer, and where there's overlap elk win; intermediate feeder vs. concentrate selector.

I certainly don't know the answer, but I know we can't have "maximum everything", and unfortunately that's the goal that much of the public has come to expect. As to whether and when it goes to the governor's desk I've considered some pros and cons but will keep those thoughts to myself for now.

 

[BuzzH]

I remember when Matt Teeters tried to shut down the feedgrounds in WY. He was the grandson of a legacy legislative family, super conservative & his grandfather would write op-eds with titles like "How Cows Saved the West."

He got taken out that next cycle by the stockgrowers.



Wyoming's problems with winter range and elk are a direct result of this mentality. WY has disallowed the G&F from owning more land that could be used as winter range and focused on a short term solution for 110 years that breeds disease and inflated herds based on carrying capacity, while also carving up quality winter range on public land for O&G development.

Those feed grounds also cause massive problems in other states, thanks to Brucellosis. Enough data has been put forward over the years to show that Brucellosis seroprevalance increases thanks to feed grounds & unnatural concentrations of elk (bison in the park). Disallowing the dispersement of those animals, whether Yellowstone bison or feed ground elk, means higher seroprevalance rates, and that leads to issues like Test & Slaughter in MT, transferable tags, politically motivated elk mgt, etc.

Yeah, it's complicated, but it's not complicated because there aren't better alternatives. It's complicated because of politics & Wyopming refusing to allow their G&F to find better solutions. This bill furthers that dynamic.

"Unnatural" concentrations of elk on winter range has always been a huge hang-up for me in regard to feed grounds.

I can take you to places today, where not a single feed ground is present, where there are bigger concentrations of elk on winter range than any feed ground in Wyoming.

Yet, those elk concentrations don't get the same media, rancher, etc. concerns as those in NW Wyoming.

To the point that IMO, its pretty hard to say its not over-played for agenda pushing. Brucellosis and CWD concerns aren't causing the uproar in Central-Eastern Wyoming that they are in NW Wyoming. The sky isn't falling, elk are concentrated as much or more during winter, and CWD prevalence has been holding steady on elk at 3-5% for decades.

Also, and again, IMO, the last State Wyoming should take advice from on elk Management, or any big-game management for that matter, is Montana.

Montana has enough troubles of their own to figure out before throwing their 2 cents into Wyoming big-game management.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

Also, and again, IMO, the last State Wyoming should take advice from on elk Management, or any big-game management for that matter, is Montana.

Montana has enough troubles of their own to figure out before throwing their 2 cents into Wyoming big-game management.

But they don't have the brucellosis prevalence that Wyo does. So they got that going for them, which is nice.

 

[appaloosa]

To throw another wrench in the whole thing...the east slope of the WY range and west slope of the Winds have a substantive amount of potential elk winter habitat. Overlay the mule deer migration data and it's a match. I feel it's very likely that turning elk loose will have a negative effect on the available habitat for wintering and migrating deer, through social displacement and forage use both. Elk can make use of a much wider range of winter forages than deer, and where there's overlap elk win; intermediate feeder vs. concentrate selector.

This argument has gained a lot of traction locally, but I don't buy it for a second. One thing we know for sure, is that feedgrounds create unnaturally high numbers of elk. And, that is somehow good for mule deer because we can keep them separated for 4 months during the winter? What about the other 8 months? With all the knowledge we have gained about migration routes, stop-over areas, parturition ranges, etc, there is a LOT of seasonal overlap in both species. This interaction has been shown over and over again to be detrimental to mule deer. Maintaining inflated numbers of elk on the landscape is bad for mule deer, regardless of where they spend the winter.
Sorry, but this is just more hyperbole spread by the feedground fanatics to try to justify their existence.

 

[Ben Lamb]

"Unnatural" concentrations of elk on winter range has always been a huge hang-up for me in regard to feed grounds.

I can take you to places today, where not a single feed ground is present, where there are bigger concentrations of elk on winter range than any feed ground in Wyoming.

Yet, those elk concentrations don't get the same media, rancher, etc. concerns as those in NW Wyoming.

To the point that IMO, its pretty hard to say its not over-played for agenda pushing. Brucellosis and CWD concerns aren't causing the uproar in Central-Eastern Wyoming that they are in NW Wyoming. The sky isn't falling, elk are concentrated as much or more during winter, and CWD prevalence has been holding steady on elk at 3-5% for decades.

Also, and again, IMO, the last State Wyoming should take advice from on elk Management, or any big-game management for that matter, is Montana.

Montana has enough troubles of their own to figure out before throwing their 2 cents into Wyoming big-game management.

Point of order, I'm not the state of Montana. Just a guy who has worked on these issues in WY & MT for the last 20 years.

But yeah, I should GFMS.

 

[Deleted member 16014]

This argument has gained a lot of traction locally, but I don't buy it for a second. One thing we know for sure, is that feedgrounds create unnaturally high numbers of elk. And, that is somehow good for mule deer because we can keep them separated for 4 months during the winter? What about the other 8 months? With all the knowledge we have gained about migration routes, stop-over areas, parturition ranges, etc, there is a LOT of seasonal overlap in both species. This interaction has been shown over and over again to be detrimental to mule deer. Maintaining inflated numbers of elk on the landscape is bad for mule deer, regardless of where they spend the winter.
Sorry, but this is just more hyperbole spread by the feedground fanatics to try to justify their existence.

I'm not a feedground fanatic. From what I've seen the bitterbrush, mahogany, and salt shrub communities on the WR front and WY Range foothills can't absorb another few thousand mouths without an effect on available winter forage for deer. Isn't there far less dietary overlap during spring/summer/fall? Elk are largely moving to poas, fescues, and needlegrasses. Deer are picking up some graminoids early but largely switching to tall forb communities. Where and when options are limited elk win.
I'm not saying don't turn them loose in the winter to save the deer. I'm saying it would have a measurable effect on available winter forage and habitat to turn out an artificially inflated elk herd on all our winter and transitional range, specifically because the whole thing is out of equilibrium. I think we're more in agreement than not.