Elk
in Park County
In
1946, Welch Brogan bought 12 elk, for $20.00 each, from the
Yellowstone National Park. He put up tall fences on his Corwin
Springs property in Park County, MT. Thus was born Cinnabar Game Farm
and Welch Brogan became the father of modern-day elk farming.
Originally
the elk resided on 14 acres of land. At its peak, the Cinnabar Game
Farm housed 400 elk on 400 acres east of Highway 89, land abutting
the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness. According to a Missoulian article
interviewing Brogan, in 30 years, he sold about 2,500 elk around the
world. He also cut antlers in velvet off of live bulls, selling the
velvet to the Orient.
Due
to my research and concerns over the Park County rancher fencing
modifications to the FWP elk brucellosis work plan, using FWP dollars
to potentially pay for miles of 6-8 foot high wildlife proof fencing,
I was relayed the history of Welch Brogan by the person who
anonymously tipped off the FWP Game Warden in the late 80's, of
Brogan baiting and capturing wild elk. This tip led to an
investigation and subsequent charges against Brogan in 1989 of two
counts of failing to maintain proper game farm fences and one count
of capturing wild elk. Brogan fought the District Courts conviction,
which the Montana Supreme Court upheld in 1995. The Montana Department
of Fish, Wildlife and Parks began trying in 1993 to revoke his
license, which in 1997, the Supreme Court agree should be revoked.
Thus ended the Cinnabar Game Farm.
Ironically,
those tall game farm fences, on land that Brogan owned, still holds
captured wildlife - Yellowstone National Park bison . The land is in
the a Brogan Limited Partnership, with the facilities being called
the Brogan Bison Facility, leased by USDA Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Services (APHIS), where they capture wild bison and
experiment on them with the GonaCon immunocontraceptive to sterilize
the wild bison. This sterility drug is also being studied for use on
wild elk populations. This is another sordid research trail for
another time.
There
has been expressed concern of rancher harboring of wildlife before
this recent rancher grab of sportsmens dollars for miles of 6-8 foot
tall wildlife proof fencing. While the ranchers at the Park County
meetings stated they wanted to exclude elk because of the brucellosis
threat (which I addressed in a recent Guest Opinion which ran in a number of Montana papers), Park County is also a major draw for elk hunting. This elk
harboring concern may have validity.
In
Park County, from 2007-2012 - years when ranchers knew it was the elk
genotype responsible for some brucellosis transmission - only 5 landowner elk Game Damage complaints were filed; 3 of those occurring
in 2008. If Park Co. ranchers were concerned about elk, why did they
not avail themselves of the tools available through FWP's Game
Damage, which required public hunter access? Even before the Elk
Management in Areas With Brucellosis was approved by the FWP
Commissioners on Jan. 10, 2013, the requests for stack fencing and
lethal removal “hunts” began rolling in from these ranchers.
Since it's approval, there have been more Park Co. requests for stack
fencing, hazing, elk kills than all previous years combined. Again,
this elk brucellosis program operates outside of Montana Game Damage
laws, which require public hunter access during the general season.
This public hunter access helps to provide hunter pressure on private
lands, encouraging the elk to seek other locations for habitat
security, rather than private lands where they may not be wanted,
except possibly during hunting season.
I
saved the maps from this 2013 seasons Block Management. In Region 3, following HWY 89, south of Livingston, there was
only one ranch that participated in Block Management, allowing public
hunter access, in Park County and it was not one
of these ranchers at the watershed working group. Yet, if you look at
a map of Outfitters Leasing Private Lands, you see HWY 89, south of Livingston, littered with outfitter leases. This does not take into
account any ranches that independently lease to hunters. Any cursory
search online of elk hunting and Paradise Valley or Pray, MT reveals
numerous ranches that are involved with elk hunting.
In
2013, an academic paper was published by FWP wildlife biologists,
Effects of Hunter Access and Habitat Security on Elk HabitatSelection in Landscapes With a Public and Private Land Matrix,
Proffitt et al. “We therefore assumed that although many private
lands did permit some hunting opportunity and access (i.e., for
family, friends or paying clients), the restricted hunting access and
level of hunting risk was more similar to no access areas than areas
that permitted public hunting access.” They also found, “Similar
to the East Madison herd, during all study periods, Western Paradise
Valley elk were less likely to occupy areas that permitted public
hunting access, and this effect intensified during the rifle period.”
“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.” “Focusing harvest
pressure on private lands currently restricting hunter access while
limiting harvests on public lands may be an effective strategy for
redistributing elk onto public lands in areas where elk distribution
is focused on private lands with limited public hunting access.”
As
in the case of elk game rancher Brogan, opening his gates on the tall
wildlife proof fencing, baiting wild elk into the enclosure and
shutting the gate behind them (against Montana law), it took a public
witness reporting the act to a FWP Game Warden to put a stop to the
practice. Should FWP Commissioners, once again pass another of these
Elk Brucellosis proposals, we could be looking at FWP dollars paying
for miles of private ranchers 6-8 foot tall wildlife obstructing
fencing. Which would not only prohibit other normal wildlife passage,
potentially, radically altering wildlife corridors in Park County,
but also opening FWP up to lawsuits which will have to be paid for by
more sportsmens dollars. I am already aware of two cases of private
landowners who enjoy the migratory elk, not wanting a 6-8 foot tall
fence bordering their property, that have expressed they would follow
this legal course, if it comes to this. An additional question - could we also be looking at wildlife harboring violations? How is this
going to be monitored for wildlife possession violations, especially
during hunting season?
When
I looked into fencing laws in the Montana Code Annotated, Title 81,
which covers livestock, 81-4-101 thru 108 states, “Any
one of the following, if not less than 44 inches or more than 48
inches in height, shall be a legal fence in the state of Montana: ”
They go on to discuss barbed wire fences, corral fencing, stack
fencing, but there is nothing involving miles of 6-8 foot tall
pasture fencing for cattle. This brings up another question: What are the
legalities of miles of 6-8 foot tall, wildlife obstructing pasture
fencing around cattle in Montana?
With
all of these issues, it begs the question, “What is the real cost
to sportsmen and wildlife, with this Elk Management in Areas With Brucellosis program, going
to be?”
Please
contact fwpcomm@mt.gov
by March 21, 2014, to object to
the Park County rancher driven modifications
to an already mismanaged elk brucellosis plan, operating outside of
Montana elk management laws.
Kathryn QannaYahu
Enhancing Montana's Wildlife & Habitat
www.emwh.org
No comments:
Post a Comment