Reject the Elk Management In Areas With Brucellosis 2014 Work Plan

August 8th is the FWP Commissioners mtg, where they will vote on the Elk Management In Areas With Brucellosis 2014 Proposed Work Plan. This plan is basically the same open ended, do whatever you want to benefit certain ranchers, to hell with the wildlife biology and Montana hunters plan that was submitted to the Commission this spring, with some "Cover My Ass" thrown in. This "management" has been a debacle in my opinion. Please contact the FWP Commissioners to not approve the Elk Management in Area With Brucellosis 2014 Proposed Work Plan. fwpcomm@mt.gov

I read something interesting in the Bison EA, pg. 49, I thought I would share, since this pertains to elk and the northern elk herd, specifically elk HD 313, an area that is of concern involving the elk brucellosis management. Take a look at information provided by FWP wildlife biologists. This is an area that kill permits were issued to ranchers this spring, as part of the elk brucellosis management. HD 317, just north of 313 is where the dispersal hunts occurred.

Northern Boundary (HD313):
Hunting District 313 encompasses winter range for the Northern Yellowstone elk herd, a migratory herd that summers primarily within Yellowstone National Park and the Absaroka- Beartooth Wilderness. This population peaked during the 1980’s and 1990’s with a 10-year average of 15,304 during 1986-1995 and has been in decline since the late 1990’s. The highest number of elk observed during aerial surveys was 19,054 elk in 1994. The winter 2013 count resulted in 3,915 observed elk, a decline of 74% from the population average at its peak. The herd is counted cooperatively by Montana and Yellowstone National Park, and the portion of the herd that winters in Montana is managed with an objective of 4,000 elk. The 2013 count resulted in 3,000 elk wintering in Montana. The highest count of elk wintering in Montana was 8,626 in 1996 with a 10-year average of 5,444 during 1989-1998. Within HD 313 from 2004-2012, there has been an average of 1,344 elk hunters and 7,302 elk hunter days annually. The average number of elk harvested declined from 1,590 (average 2000-2006) to 259 (average 2007-2012). Hunting season structure is restrictive with antlerless harvest limited to 30 brow-tined bull/antlerless youth-only permits and unlimited permits for brow-tined bulls."

Points concerning the Work Plan

• "To date, local working groups (which are supposed to have representation by Sportspersons, Wildlife enthusiasts, Landowners that do not raise livestock and Livestock Producers) have not been identified in all areas." Meetings have been set up, of primarily ranchers, in their homes, obstructing sportsmens groups and excluding the other stakeholders required by the Commission. Complaint letters have been ignored, Montana Annotated Code 2-3-101 - 107 open meeting has been obstructed and resulting FOIA's only partially filled, contrary to Dir. Hageners directions.

• Again, the "Unknown number of..." aspects to this plan is not really a plan, but an opened ended recipe for continuing the practices that have been occurring with little accountability or transparency.

• Why has FWP used sportspersons dollars to supply stackyard fencing, hazing, kill permits, etc. to ranchers that do not allow public access hunting during the established hunting season as the Game Damage Program requires (Landowners may be eligible for game damage assistance if they allow public hunting during established hunting seasons. Assistance may include hazing, repellants, temporary or permanent stackyard fencing, damage hunts, kill permits, or supplemental game damage licenses.)? When this question was brought up by one of the Elk Brucellosis Working Group members at the July 11th meeting in Bozeman, Quentin Kujala quickly replied to them that they, the Working Group, did not include it in their Proposed Recommendations that the FWP Commissioners approved. I have a number of questions with this. 1. Why did not Quentin Kujala, FWP's representative and manager of this program point this out to a “civilian” working group when they were compiling their proposed recommendations? 2. Why did no other FWP representative reviewing this document before presentation point this out? And if they did, why was it not presented to the Working Group? 3, Why did the FWP Commissioners not add this as an amendment to the Proposed Recommendations to protect Montana Sportsmen, their access and their dollars coming into FWP? 4. Why is this still not required in this work plan?

• "Hunters will be selected using mechanisms "comparable" (this kind of ambiguity is what has been causing concerns.) to those used for game damage hunts." This should read, "Hunters will be selected from the Hunt Roster ("There is only one Hunt Roster and hunters from this roster may be identified for 3 types of hunts: Game Damage, Management Season, and Dispersal." - FWP website)."

• "Dispersal hunts will be accomplished as early as possible in the risk season..." This whole section should lead with a statement that IF there is a concentration of elk in a commingling situation, then..., not the open ended objective of accomplishing dispersal hunts as early as possible. In effect, what this sounds like is a Montana elk hunt season from Sept. 7th through May 15th. also, Julie Cunningham, FWP's Region 3 wildlife biologist warned in an email, "Furthermore, I think of the Madison-Gallatin herd as an example here. Elk move out of the Gallatin into the Madison during winter. The more we hunt during winter, the more we are reducing a herd which spends summer on public lands and is publicly accessible through early hunting season, AND which is BELOW objective. We could be really hurting our Gallatin herd by allowing post-February hunting. I do have radio-collar data showing mid-winter migrations out of the Gallatin to back this up."

• Gut pile management is crucial, IF this whole process is really about minimizing the risk of brucellosis transmission with cattle and other elk. This seasons gut piles were not managed. Why did Quentin Kujala and other FWP personnel familiar with the biology of brucellosis not insist on gut pile management? The only way a bull can transmit brucellosis to cattle is if he is infected (not just seropositive, showing antibodies to exposure), you kill him and then expose his lymph nodes and sexual organs to cattle or other elk. Likewise, with cow elk, with the addition of the birthing materials. There was one pregnant cow that was killed in this years "dispersal" hunts. This would have been a sure fire way, if she was infected/infectious to expose cattle and other elk to brucellosis.

• Why is there nothing in this document about kill permits and dispersal hunts in areas under objective? The Northern Elk herd has been in an average decline of 6-8 % each year for the last decade. Kill permits were issued in HD 313, which is 25% below objective, with yearling bull counts of .56% (less than 1 percent). The dispersal hunt occurred in HD 317 which is 16% below objective, with yearling bull counts of .9% (less than 1 percent). There were no cow/calf counts in HD's 314, 315, 317, and 393. There should be some restrictions against kill permits and dispersal hunts in areas with such a decline, focusing on other means to achieve the dispersal.

• Kill permit requirements should follow those of the fencing mentioned above - required public hunting during established hunting seasons and consideration of population numbers.

• Local Working Groups - should be established based on the multi stakeholder representation. I called all the conservation and wildlife advocate groups from Gardiner over to Bozeman and not one even knew about this group and had not been asked to participate. GWA had asked repeatedly to participate and was denied.

• The educational presentation needs some serious work to not look like and be presented as a livestock advocacy presentation, instead of a FWP wildlife presentation. Why is Quentin Kujala stating the inflammatory transmission risk time, from an abortion or birthing materials of brucellosis is 81 days? This is based on a worst case scenario test conducted by Keith Aune, Tom Roffe and others, which restricted any predation, sunlight and temps from normally affecting the bacteria. This has never been replicated in a natural brucellosis scenario. In fact at the Elk Working Group meeting on July 11th, Neil Anderson stated it was a race against the birds to get to an abortion event (notified by a VIT) and generally he lost. This inflammatory 81 day statement is not being qualified and is being used by ranchers as a war cry to eliminate elk and brucellosis from wildlife, even being incorporated on film, which is being passed around to the livestock community. Dr. Marty Zaluski, in public meetings such as the IBMP, has stated 21 days for the transmission period from an abortion. If birthing materials later in the season, the transmission period is even shorter due to temperature and sunlight.

• "Explore potential habitat management adjustments on WMA's and other lands and hunting season recommendations designed to foster adjusted elk distribution." This section sounds like it is more concerned with elk population numbers, wanting to apply increased elk tag numbers, which has no bearing on brucellosis transmission risks from commingling, especially in areas, such as Park County, that are in a decline. As far as the hunting to affect elk distribution, a recent paper, Effects of Hunter Access and Habitat Security on Elk Habitat Selection in Landscapes With a Public and Private Land Matrix, published 2013, written by FWP's Kelly Proffitt, et al should be considered. They found that elk cow security was affected by threats such as public land hunting and motorized vehicles, causing them to congregate on private lands, which is reducing the public land herds available to the public hunters. "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." (pg. 10) This goes back to my earlier point of hunter resources being used for private ranchers that do not allow this public hunter access - its a lose/lose for he Montana sportsmen. Increasing nearby hunting on WMA's will only increase the elk population densities on the very ranches that they are wanting less elk populations on, to reduce the possible spread of brucellosis, which is not a threat during the regular hunting season anyway. So why is this really here, unless the objective is population control or to really drive the elk to the private lands during hunting season?

• As to "effective communication, education and outreach" with this Commission, the general public and landowners. I feel the Montana sportspersons should be included in this. I wholeheartedly agree. Y'all should be given the numerous documents from FWP wildlife biologists that you have been excluded from. Educating yourselves on these issues is necessary to your making wise wildlife management policy.

Please contact the FWP Commissions and ask them to reject this 2014 Elk Work Plan and call for an audit.

Kathryn QannaYahu

Montana's Elk Management In Areas With Brucellosis

The following post is a complex and interwoven subject, dealing with Montana's Elk Management In Areas With Brucellosis; the original 12 member Elk Brucellosis Working Group; the FWP Commission's adoption of the Proposed Final Recommendations on Jan. 10, 2013; the subsequent implementation of this program by Quentin Kujala who led the Elk Brucellosis Working Group; and the obstruction, lack of accountability and transparency in what should be a scientifically managed, multi-stakeholder public process concerning our public trust elk in Montana with the local elk brucellosis working groups. I highly suggest eating large amounts of organic dark chocolate to help process, of which copious amounts were utilized in the researching, analyzing  and presenting of this data for over half a year.

This article or any other similar action was not my first choice. It is the result of being forced to this action by numerous situations with some FWP employees, concerning myself and other concerned conservation sportspeople here in FWP Region 3. When you are confronted with the rejection of responsible wildlife science, excluded from the public process, stonewalled by the officials when you repeatedly protest these occurrences, when you have exhausted due process, you are left with the court of public opinion. Which is where I am at now. The purpose of this article is to bring awareness and thereby, hopefully, accountability and transparency to this process according to Montana Statues and the FWP Commission approved Proposed Recommendations. 

To make it easier to deal with the data, I have converted many documents obtained into PDF's and PNG's (you may need to zoom the image for better viewing) for universal viewing and printing. I hope that readers will look into the research and verify my statements, for I never expect anyone to just take my word for it. Beyond the verification, my greater hope is that Montana's conservationist sportspeople, wildlife and habitat advocates and general concerned public citizens will utilize the email links and phone numbers provided at the bottom to comment, question, complain to those in charge and fight for our elk, so that they do not go the way of the wild bison in Montana - hazed, shot, subjected to brucellosis test and slaughter, such as Rep. Alan Redfield suggested in his HB 312 - the elk brucellosis test and slaughter bill during this last legislation.There is  bigger picture here, which will have to be covered in a post all its own - the fundamental objectives of APHIS, USAHA and the DOL of eliminating brucellosis from known reservoirs - which includes elk.

July 11, 2013 is the next original Elk Brucellosis Working Group Meeting, that will review process and compile a report to the FWP Commission in Aug. There is only 1/2 hour public comment scheduled for this meeting.

Basic Elk Management In Areas With Brucellosis and Events Timeline

•  Fall 2011 - FWP and Commission initiate the Elk Management Guidelines in Areas with Brucellosis Working Group
• 1/12/2012 - a 12 member Working Group, chosen from over 40 applicants by FWP Director Joe Maurier, are notified of their acceptance. Noland and Raths are also ag/livestock, making 8 of the 12 members with ag/livestock interests.
• 9/11/2012 - FWP Commission tentative adoption of Working Group Proposed Recommendations
• 10/31/2012 - 1st FWP wildlife biologist comments against draft Proposed Recommendations. This one is a large list of points and very pertinent, "There are some points here that take us down some very dangerous roads. They are playing interests against one another, and I really have to wonder where the sportsmen’s voice is in all this. We could be paying landowners to fence out elk? Paying for vaccination? All the while reducing elk populations and thusly elk opportunities for sportsmen? I really hope that SOMEONE in our agency stands up to some of the points presented in here, or we may face some major problems in the future.", 2nd wildlife biologist comments. "Are livestock producers and other constituents willing to stand by this when other members of the public , MOGA, etc cry foul on us?" Neither of these statements were provided to the Working Group members, nor the FWP Commissioners. Names or identifiers have been blocked out to protect the conscientious biologists. Additional Science - Dr. Mark Albrechts chart (collaborated with Dr. Thomas Roffe) on Brucellosis Transmission from Elk Populations, Brucellosis Science Workshop Summary chart by Dave Hallac (YNP). 2012 Brucellosis Designated Surveillance Area (DSA). Zoom charts for better resolution.
• 14/11/2012 - Dr. Mark Albrecht's (member of the Working Group) letter to FWP Commission asking them to reconsider their vote on the Proposed Recommendations. This letter was first sent to Quentin Kujala to see if it should be passed on to the Commission members.
• 1/10/2013 - FWP Commission vote to approve Proposed Final Recommendations with commissioner's amendments. Dan Vermillion suggests that implementations go through Regional Supervisor and Regional Commissioner for authorization. Dan Vermillion is the Regional Commissioner. Commission minutes (page 5) verifying amendments and vote approval. At this point Gallatin Wildlife Association notifies FWP that they would like to participate in the local working group process.
• Feb.-April 2013 elk dispersal hunts take place, $2000 stack Fencing paid to ranchers with sportsmen dollars (1st request before Final Recommendations were even voted on, more fencing in Feb., county commissioner has bigger stacks, wants more money (at least two documented cases of fencing showed the ranchers did not allow "public hunting access for wildlife distribution and population management". I do not have the forms, as I requested, for the other cases, nor a listing of all the cases as I requested.) , hazing - hunt details below
• 2/15/2013 - 1st local brucellosis working group meeting at a Mill Creek rancher, Jim Melin's ranch, Friday Meeting, where 2 Gallatin Wildlife Association members (MWF affiliates), one of which Glenn Hockett the president, were on their way to Livingston to participate and are called, told they cannot attend that it is private, by FWP employee, directed by Quentin Kujala, approved by FWP Commission Chair Dan Vermillion as a "smart move".
• 4/22/2013 - 2nd local brucellosis working group meeting at Park County Rod and Gun Club. Again, invitation from one of the Park County Rod and Gun Club members is rescinded and we are told it is a private meeting by Quentin Kujala. Kathryn QannaYahu receives clarification from Pat Flowers, Region 3 Supervisor, that according to Montana Statutes, this is a public meeting while the FWP employees are there and presenting. She takes Montana statues and goes to meeting anyway, despite Kujala's obstruction and is admitted to meeting. See email below for this verification. Kujala stated he checked with legal beforehand, but in a conversation with Dokter, not knowing Kujala stated this, she confirmed it was a public meeting while FWP was there. Montana Annotated Code
• 4/24/2013 - Kathryn QannaYahu, as a concerned member of the public,conservation hunter and wildlife advocate emails official complaint letter concerning local working group meeting's obstruction with Quentin Kujala, Ken McDonald, Pat Flowers and Dan Vermillion. Kujala replies to recipients, "to make no response." No response was ever made by these officials, which prompted the Information Request.
• 5/3/2013 - Kathryn QannaYahu files official Information Request Relating to Elk Management in Areas of Brucellosis with FWP Director Jeff Hagener. Hagener forwards request to Ken McDonald stating, "We need to comply with this request". Ken McDonald forwards to Quentin Kujala stating, "My first inclination is to send her to the website where the workgroup documents were placed. If she comes back for more..."
•  5/24/2013 - Kathryn QannaYahu receives a CD in the mail with 388 sporadic emails, a fraction of the requested documentation.
• 6/14/2013 - After trying to call FWP Dir. Jeff Hagener about obstruction and partial Information Request fulfillment, Kathryn QannaYahu is told Hagener will not be available until mid-July, call is forwarded to FWP attorney Rebecca Jakes Dockter, who advises to send Hagener another Information Request email outlining the missing documentation. Email is sent and according to return receipt, opened at 8:31 PM. This has not been fulfilled.
• 6/24/2013 - Realizing I forgot to include the hunt roster information request in the unfulfilled information request, I sent another.
• 7/1/2013 - Hunt Roster reply from Dokter, via Kujala.
  HD 317 (zoom to see clearly), HD 560 . Actually, anyone without a legal degree, reading my request will be able to see, once again, I have not received all of what I asked for - order the rosters were at, as of January 10th, which hunters were utilized on which dates since then - to current date, where they hunted, what the classification of the hunt was labeled (game damage, dispersal, etc.) and what they harvested.
• 7/4/2013 - Rest of documentation has still not been received, nor any response to obstruction process by Hagener.

 Dispersal Hunt partial details. Due to the fact that I only received a small portion of my Information Request, I do not have complete details of this process. Here is what I do have. But first, I would like to lay some groundwork on this subject. 

On March 8, 2013, Brett French wrote an article, Northern park elk population still dropping. Wolf biologist Doug Smith and FWP biologist Karen Loveless are quoted concerning the declining elk numbers in the northern elk herd. The numbers this year are listed as being a 6% decline. The average decline is 8% in recent years.

"FWP counted only 11 calves per 100 cows last year, said Karen Loveless, an FWP biologist based in Livingston.'That’s really poor,' she said. 'As long as we have calf survival that low, I’m still really concerned.' To maintain the elk population, she said, calf recruitment would have to double to about 20 percent. To increase the herd, the recruitment rate would have to rise to 30 percent. The northern herd has been below that 30 percent rate for more than a decade, she added. 'Our objective for northern range elk wintering in Montana is 3,000 to 5,000,' Loveless said."

As a result of this article, in conjunction with my working group research I requested this years elk survey. Karen Loveless had not finished the final survey report but sent her stats.   The Mill Creek hunt was in HD 317. MAP (zoom). Recommendation for dispersal hunt at Mill Creek. 317's objective was 900. The count was 756. In the previous years report from Karen, she writes of district 317, "In 2012, 651 elk were observed, compared to 908 elk observed in 2011, 636 elk observed in 2010, and 937 in 2009. This count is 28% below the Elk Management Plan objective of 900 elk." This years count of 756 is 16% below objective.

Elk Management update PDF's recently released by FWP Region 3, Region 5

So why if the herd is in decline and these districts are below objective, is FWP having elk dispersal hunts there? 

Email from Kujala, dated May 2, 2013, 

"Sirs—
I have heard from Rep. Redfield (Paradise Valley). He is complimentary of the current brucellosis-related efforts that include the late season dispersal hunts in Regions 3 and 5. I also understand he is interested in a summer meeting with landowners to talk about an extended cow hunt. Not really sure if this means the next iteration of dispersal hunts or an antlerless elk hunt that is defined more within the context of biennial season setting. Regardless, something we should visit on—for now I offer this as an FYI for you to contemplate and prepare for any next conversation we need to have. Please forward to your staff as you see fit. Obviously one possibility here is an interaction with the 5-week season discussion.
Thanks and sorry, Q"

This is the same Rep. Alan Redfield that sponsored the  HB 312 elk brucellosis test and slaughter bill this year. He is also one of the Paradise Valley ranchers contacted by FWP for the first rancher local working group meeting.
 

Recent (July 2, 2013) email from Dr. Bill Mealer, a member of the Safari Club, to other Safari Club members, adding FWP Commission Chairman Dan Vermillion (Livingston resident), complaining about the late dispersal hunts. Vermillion states that he authorized the Mill Creek hunts.


Elk Brucellosis Talking Points/Questions

Are after Feb 15 hunts a good idea?

What do the biologists think? (At least 2 commented negatively in internal letters)

Should hunts be implemented without open and transparent public discussion involving all 4 interest groups identified by the working group? (Hunters, livestock producers, wildlife enthusiasts, and non-livestock producing landowners) 

What was done with the gut piles? (leaving fetuses behind may actually increase the risk of transmission)

Since the game damage hunt format is being used did the landowners allow public hunting during the general season? ( What is public hunting?  Block management?  The neighbors?  Relatives?  This needs to be defined and checked)

Is there any conservation easement on the property by any organization that allows for winter range use? (If the landowner has previously been compensated for winter range use we question spending more sportsman dollars.)

Were other options tried first? – hazing, fencing?

Cost of implementation and if any of the cost was paid for with anything but sportsman dollars– biologist and staff time, fencing cost, hazing cost. (Fundamental objective #3 is cost effectiveness)  How many sportsman dollars are being spent?  And staff/biologist time counts,  as it appears they spend extensive time trying to appease livestock producers.

What license was used by those participating? – for the later hunts it appears the 2012 license would have expired so was a 2013 tag used?

Did the hunts keep the elk away?

Is the area at or below objective? ( if below should we be harvesting more elk?) HD 313 we are BELOW objective by 25% and HD 317 we are BELOW objective 16% (according to the local wildlife biologists statistics), yet hunts took place.

Were blood samples collected? 

What has been done to create an educational presentation for potential working groups utilizing responsible science and wildlife management, not politics?  ( Having good information that represents science is important if any group is to make headway on this problem) 

Is a rancher’s kitchen table the appropriate place to have meetings?  Will the result be equitable and fair?  Are all parties represented?  Is FWP seeking long term solutions or just hoping to give the rancher something? 

So are these working groups or deals between FWP and ranchers?  I think that needs to be clear.  Don’t call this a public process if it is not – remember members of the MWF affiliate Gallatin Wildlife Association were told on two occasions NOT to attend these meetings and complaints citing Montana Statutes public process were ignored by FWP officials.

Bottom line:

Open and transparent meetings and communication involving all interested user groups is the only way to achieve a long-term solution. (Numerous conservation/wildlife advocate groups were contacted to see if they were contacted, any time after Jan. 10, 2013, by FWP for their participation in this local working group process. All have stated they were not and were not even aware of what was going on here in FWP Region 3 and 5. They are becoming aware now.)

Since we are seeking to minimize transmission and not to eradicate, this will be a challenging process.  We must push to minimize transmission NOT to eradicate.  The first fundamental objective is minimize transmission.  HB 312, introduced by Rep. Alan Redfield, sought to eradicate. Several FWP e-mails seems to really focus on Rep. Redfield’s desires.  He needs education NOT appeasement.

Official Contacts for questions, comments and complaints
I would highly suggest carboning a witness for accountability, since obstruction has been seen in some cases.

Governor Steve Bullock - 406-444-3111   governor@mt.gov

Tim Baker, Policy Advisor for Natural Resources - 406-444-7857  tbaker@mt.gov

FWP Commissioners - (406) 444-7826   fwpcomm@mt.gov
District 1, Gary J. Wolfe - (406) 493-9189 
District 2, Dan Vermillion - (406) 222-0624 dan@sweetwatertravel.com
District 3,  Richard Stuker - (406) 357-3495
District 4, Lawrence “Larry” Wetsit - (406) 650-7071
District 5, Matthew Tourtlotte - (406) 698-9696

FWP Director Jeff Hagener - (406) 444-3186  jhagener@mt.gov
FWP Deputy Director Mike Volesky - 406) 444-4600  mvolesky@mt.gov

Ken McDonald, Bureau Chief - (406) 444-5645  kmcdonald@mt.gov

Quentin Kujala, Wildlife Mngmnt Section Chief - (406) 444-5672  qkujala@mt.gov

Pat Flowers, Region 3 Supervisor  -  (406) 994-4050  PFlowers@mt.gov



Main Elk Brucellosis Working Group Members

Mr. Mark R. Albrecht - mralbrecht62@gmail.com 
Mr. John C. Anderson - jck@3rivers.net
Mr. Ed Bukoskey - goosehaven@rangeweb.net 
Mr. Joe Cohenour - utopiamt@optimum.net 
Mr. Rick Douglass - RDouglass@mtech.edu 
Mr. Rick Gibson - rgrs@wispwest.net 
Mr. Lorents Grosfield - lorents@mcn.net 
Mr. Ken Hamlin - knphamlin@bresnan.net 
Mr. Raymond Marxer - ramarxer@gmail.com 
Mr. Charlie Noland - chrlsnoland@yahoo.com 
Mr. William Raths - dick.nancy.raths@gmail.com 
Mr. C. Thomas Rice - trice@beaverheadcounty.org



Here's to accountability and transparency in Montana's Elk Management In Areas With Brucellosis.




Kathryn QannaYahu, concerned member of the public, conservation naturalist hunter and fisher (I have done primitive net and basket fishing to learn how, so I cant just say angler), wildlife advocate with traditional ag/livestock background now converted to organics and sustainability. Did I leave anything out? Oh yeah, Gallatin Wildlife Association and Montana Wildlife Federation member (but not writing this post on their behalf).
katqanna@gmail.com

Restoring Montana's Wild Bison Populations

 

"If there be no place for wild bison in all of Montana, then surely we have crossed a line between the Last Best Place and the the Once Best Place." 
- Jim Bailey
 
National Bison Range, in western Montana, home to a very small population of bison. 

Base photo, before all my major graphics changes, from the USFWS. If only I could so easily edit more wild bison onto Montana public lands. 


Kathryn QannaYahu

Private Capture of Federal Public Lands: A Brief Overview

By Jim Bailey, Wildlife Biologist

Our federal lands are an important public trust resource. They are owned by the public and managed by trustees (government agencies) to benefit current and future generations. Some refer to the public lands as “commons”. They note a tragic history of such lands. Without regulations, competing individuals have trashed the commons as each tried to obtain more than their share of benefits. Today, this threat to federal public trust lands is supposed to be controlled with prudent management by our trustee agencies, mostly the Forest Service, Park Service, Bureau of Land Management and Fish & Wildlife Service. 

About 30 percent of Montana is federal public land. These lands are essential to the quality of life in our “Big Sky Country”. They are the scenery, the backdrop to our lives. They are vital components of the habitat for fish and wildlife that we treasure. They are places for all sorts of outdoor recreation. They are essential to tourism, our state’s largest industry. Public benefits from Montana’s federal lands are large and diverse. They must be protected for use and enjoyment by the people.

But, the tragedy of the commons is still with us. There are individuals and industries hell-bent on turning our federal lands into private profits. Their strategy is capture and control. Capture special or exclusive access to the land. Control the trustees, our government agencies and legislatures, to bend management policies in ways that favor special interests on our lands.

Capturing the public resource

Industries and other special interests have used laws, government policies and historical precedent to capture permanent, often exclusive, access to our federal public lands. 

The 1872 mining law is one example. Mining interests extract $2-3 billion annually from the public trust, mostly at the minimal cost of $2.50 to $5.00/acre. The 1872 mining law is a blatant case of private capture of the public trust. Results can be locally devastating. Yet, the amount of land involved is small by comparison with other private uses of the public land.

The most widespread capture of public land is the federal livestock grazing program. Over 14,000 square miles, about 10 percent of Montana, is federal land grazed by private livestock. Most of this land is managed by the BLM and Forest Service, but National Monuments and Wildlife Refuges are included. Grazing fees are low and have not kept pace with inflation. In some programs, half the funds from grazing fees must be reused to further enhance the private grazing. But, taxpayers pay most of the costs from the federal grazing program. 

Grazing Lease Rate Valuation - pg. 37 BLM Rates

Many public-land livestock operators believe they have a permanent “right” to their allotments. Banks often recognize this idea by considering the value from using the public land as private loan collateral. While legal standards proclaim that a public grazing allotment is a “privilege”, not a right, our land-management agencies rarely revoke the permanent connection of an allotment to a landowner’s private land. Moreover, new laws, such as wilderness designations, and court decisions often provide exceptions for livestock operators to use the public lands in contrast to the rights of all others. Each such new law or court decision strengthens the legal argument that the public’s right to determine how the public land will be used has been diminished.

Other federal lands are dedicated for coal and petroleum production. Impacts of these industries are large and growing in some parts of Montana. Wildlife populations have been decimated and rivers degraded. Historically, reclamation following these projects has often been lacking. Industry lobbyists in Congress and in the state legislature always oppose industry restrictions or regulations. Industry propagandists tell us that their impacts upon our landscape are minor while their contributions to the public welfare are large. Usually, as we look farther, in both space and time, from each industrial project on the public land, the costs increase and the benefits decrease for a larger number of the owners of the public land.

Ultimate control of federal land can be contrived by arranging for private access to land where public access has been eliminated. Small units of the federal land trust are isolated by private land and inaccessible without permission. The Forest Service and BLM have little say in managing many of these parcels. 

Many larger units of federal land have only a few public roads for access across adjacent private land. Private interests often seek to close these public roads. Limiting public access may provide an adjacent landowner with special benefits - without the tax assessments - from our public land. Such combinations of private and otherwise inaccessible public land can be a valuable commodity when sold to a hunting outfitter who will treat the public land as a private hunting reserve.

Controlling the public trustee

Private interests control our government trustees of the public lands in very many, sometimes obscure, ways. The most obvious approach is to fund the elections of friendly legislators and governors. However, the tactics of the resulting trustees of our public lands are often far from obvious. Uses of the public lands are skewed toward private benefits and away from long-term public values in very many ways. I can only refer to a few examples.

The ultimate government policy statement is a budget. Special interests contrive for Congress to fund the leasing of public lands while restricting funds for monitoring or regulating these uses. For many federal grazing allotments, there has not been a review of the allotment management plan in over a decade. Some have never had environmental costs and benefits analyzed under the National Environmental Protection Act. Congress has said that federal agencies may not diminish grazing allotments on public lands just because monitoring and review have not been completed. Then Congress fails to adequately fund the agencies for monitoring and review. Impacts to wildlife habitats are, at best, unknown or, at worst, serious.

Special interests routinely seek to weaken the Endangered Species Act. Since its inception, it has been our nation’s most powerful tool for preserving species and their habitats. The Act is the only institution providing consistency of restoration effort across state boundaries and across changes in state and federal government administrations.

I recently visited National Grasslands in other states. They are managed by the Forest Service. According to the National Forest Management Act, the Forest Service is to provide suitable habitat for native species, well distributed across its lands. I asked why the Grassland had no bison. One district ranger replied: “We can’t have bison because we are a multiple-use agency.” Another ranger said I should discuss bison with the local grazing association whose cattle use the Grassland. I wondered what “multiple use” meant to the Forest Service, and why private grazing associations had replaced the trustees of our public trust land.

Even state laws and policies contrive to limit wildlife possibilities in favor of private uses on our federal lands. Montana law requires that wildlife transplants are prohibited unless the commission determines there is no threat of harm to agricultural production. First, this is an impossible standard. Second, since livestock grazing on federal lands is “agricultural production”, it prohibits the public from deciding that a wildlife herd can be more publicly beneficial than a private grazing allotment on any federal land. As a consequence, FWP policy is that “any localized removal, transfer, or conversion of established domestic sheep allotments on public lands for the benefit of bighorns” should only occur if agreed to by the sheepherder. In the cases of bighorn sheep and bison, the Beaverhead National Forest and the C. M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, respectively, use this law as an excuse for not having adequate bighorn herds on the Forest or any bison on the Refuge. Thus, private interests capture uses on our federal lands by controlling the trustees of our public wildlife and our federal lands.

Conclusion

These are but a few examples of private capture of our federal lands and control of our public trustees. Such activity is abundant, widespread and relentless. Each special-interest project seems small or perhaps moderate in scope. Consequently, public awareness of the threat is limited but the cumulative results are enormous and increasing. Meanwhile, public options for using our lands are being constrained or eliminated, diminishing our legacy to future generations of Montanans.

Montana's Senator John Brenden's "Heathen Into Christian" Bison.

Recently,  Sen. John Brenden, on April 11th, 2013, during the SB 143 hearing before the House Agriculture Committee, compared wild bison in Montana, to heathens, and domesticated bison to Christians, "They are maintaining that bison from Yellowstone National Park are wildlife. There's been bills and discussions put in, that once they are in captivity, they become domesticated, or they're livestock. If I knew the exact transition, the moment that you go from being a heathen into a Christian, I don't know that answer. It's a very difficult one."

This statement has larger ramifications than just the speciesism against wild bison in Montana; this is racism, against the Native American tribes, whose culture is intertwined with the bison. Brenden did not make an association of value between wild and domesticated bison, but made a moral association, which does not apply to animals, but to people.

The Native Americans across the U.S., as well as indigenous peoples across the world, have often been subjected to forced conversions to Christianity, or another dominant religion, in the guise of "civilizing" or "domesticating" them. This arrogant perspective that one belief system is superior and needs to be imposed on another is deplorable. The very term "heathen", from Old English hæðen, means "not Christian or Jewish". Perhaps this was a "Freudian Slip", revealing his views of Native Americans being herded onto reservations to be "domesticated" and often converted to Christianity, as being superior to those Native Americans that desire to uphold an older spiritual culture that views bison as kin.

In Lame Deer, Seeker of Visions, by Richard Erdoes and John Fire Lame Deer, Lame Deer states, "It is the same with the buffalo. They have the power and the wisdom. We Sioux have a close relationship with the buffalo. He is our brother. We have many legends of buffalo changing themselves into men. And the Indians are built like the buffalo, too-big shoulders, narrow hips. According to our belief, the Buffalo Woman who brought us the peace pipe, which is at the center of our religion, was a beautiful maiden, and after she taught our tribes how to worship with the pipe, she changed herself into a white buffalo calf. So the buffalo is very sacred to us. You cant understand about nature, about the feelings we have toward it, unless you understand how close we are to the buffalo. That animal was almost like a part of ourselves, part of our souls.

The buffalo gave us everything we needed. Without it we were nothing. Our tipis were made of his skin. His hide was our bed, our blanket, our winter coat. It was our drum, throbbing through the night, alive, holy. Out of his skin we made our water bags. His flesh strengthened us, became flesh of our flesh. Not the smallest part of it was wasted. His stomach, a red-hot stone dropped into it, became our soup kettle. His horns were our spoons, the bones our knives, our women's awls and needles. Out of his sinews we made our bowstrings and thread. His ribs were fashioned into sleds for our children, his hoofs became rattles. His mighty skull, with the pipe leaning against it, was our sacred altar. The name of the greatest of all Sioux was Tatanka Iyotake--Sitting Bull. When you killed off the buffalo you also killed the Indian--the real, natural, 'wild' Indian." 

Now, that is not Christianity. That is what Sen. John Brenden would say was "heathen" - juxtaposed to Christianity. And this interconnectedness is not isolated to just the Lakota nation. While not having researched the other Montanan nations yet, I have heard a number of other Nations speak of the Bison, as related and sacred. An example of this was evident at the Montana Bison Rally, at the Helena Capitol, on March 12th, 2013. This video clip was made by the Buffalo Field Campaign. As soon as I can edit the full version of Sen. Sharon Stewart-Peregoy's speech, I will put it up. She spoke very clearly on the importance of the bison to the Native American nations in Montana.

This comment of Brenden's needs to be challenged and publicly called into question. He needs to be held accountable. Racism and lack of tolerance for other's spiritual practices has no place in a "civilized" society, certainly not in our legislature. 

Kathryn QannaYahu

The Raid on Our Wildlife Management Areas

Our Montana Wildlife Management Areas are a public trust resource. Purchased with hunters’ dollars, they are owned by the people. Present and future generations of Montanans are the legal beneficiaries of the trust. Fish, Wildlife & Parks is the “trustee”, obligated to manage these trust lands to benefit the public owners.

However, special interests are always ready to turn the benefits of a public trust resource into private gains, even at the expense of public needs and values. They seek to (1) obtain privileged access to our public trust lands, and (2) control the trustee. They will use the legislature and the law to accomplish their private goals. Public diligence is needed to assure proper management of trust resources for public benefits. And so it is with our state WMAs and FWP. 

Livestock on our WMAs

Private domestic livestock graze wildlife forage and cover, and displace wildlife, on at least 21 WMAs. In some cases, entire WMAs are in livestock grazing programs.

Limited livestock grazing can be a useful tool for managing vegetation to benefit some types of wildlife. But levels and frequency of livestock use on our WMAs almost always exceed beneficial levels. Most WMA pastures are grazed 2 years out of every 3. FWP has not been able to provide clear evidence that wildlife populations, especially big game, have responded positively to the effects of livestock grazing on WMAs. In fact, most data indicate negative effects. Effects on streamside vegetation and fisheries are often ignored. Abundant scientific literature documents negative impacts of cattle grazing to wildlife. 

Usually, FWP is paid for public forage used by private livestock, mostly at less than private-land rates. FWP expenses for managing private grazing have included costs for fencing and water developments, and costs for fencing cattle out of wetlands and other habitats prone to severe use. Personnel costs for monitoring grazing projects and for preparing and administering contracts and environmental assessments are never reported, and must be large.

FWP touts “good landowner relations” as a benefit from private grazing on our WMAs. No doubt, there is some truth to this claim. But neighborliness does not usually require one neighbor’s access to the other neighbor’s property.

Many private grazing cooperators allow hunting on adjacent private lands, but this is seldom required in contracts to graze public lands. Some cooperators are already paid for hunter access through the Block Management program.

If the private use of WMA forage is considered a trade, compensating for big-game use of forage on private lands, this goal should be clearly stated and analyzed in each environmental assessment for each WMA grazing contract. It is likely that the amount and value of WMA forage used by livestock exceeds the value of forage used seasonally by big game on adjacent private land.

On 21 of our WMAs, each private grazing project is unique with its own set of public benefits and costs. However, the overall program is immense, as are costs for managing the program. In reviewing numerous environmental assessments for many grazing projects, it is clear that private benefits greatly exceed net public benefits. 

Livestock Trailing across WMAs

The most narrowly focused special-interest use of a WMA is supported by law. This law provides special privileges to one domestic sheep operation on one WMA. However, it could be used by other livestock operators on other WMAs. The law requires permitting of livestock trailing across any WMA under almost any circumstances. Unlike all other commercial uses of WMAs, FWP may not require a fee for livestock trailing, or for forage used in the operation. (Currently, over 16,000 domestic sheep are trailed in up to 6 bands, twice yearly across Robb/Ledford WMA, taking at least 2 days for each passage. The forage removed is not trivial.) The law allows trailing for up to 4 days across a WMA! FWP may not analyze the impacts of such trailing as the law exempts trailing across a WMA from analysis under the Montana Environmental Protection Act. In the public interest, this law should be repealed.

Required Logging Access

Recent Montana law threatens to make wildlife habitat a secondary goal on forested WMAs, with timber management a priority. It (1) requires FWP to have a forest management plan and timber sale program funded with FWP monies, (2) requires an annual timber sale, and (3) requires FWP funds be used to remeasure the annual sustainable yield of timber from FWP forested lands at least once each 5 years. In requiring that FWP’s forest management plan be based upon the annual sustainable yield, and in emphasizing the measurement of annual sustainable yield, the law will make it politically difficult for FWP to permit anything less than this amount of timber to be removed from forested WMAs each year. FWP receipts from sale of timber may only be used to plan additional timber harvests on WMAs. For timber companies, it’s about like owning the land, while FWP pays the property taxes. Another law needing repeal. 

Haying and Sharecropping

Other WMAs have contracts for removal of hay and for sharecropping to produce a variety of agricultural crops. Wildlife responses to these activities are seldom, if ever, measured adequately. Public benefits are assumed but unclear. Total public costs are unreported. Some WMAs have both private grazing and sharecropping or haying projects.

With sharecropping, a portion of the agricultural crop is left unharvested for wildlife, often pheasants, to use. If the unharvested portion is 20% of the area, the wildlife value of the agricultural crop would have to be 5 times as great, on a per-acre basis, as the year-round value of land not placed in the sharecropping program and growing native vegetation – just to break even! 

Private Capture and Control

The strategy of “capture the public trust resource and control the trustee” is a major threat to Montana wildlife and Montana wildlife lands. The constant but incremental loss from the public trust has gone largely unnoticed for too long. There is an urgent need to hold our legislature, and FWP, accountable for this loss. A widespread critical focus on WMA management is one place to start. 

 

FWP WMAs with private livestock grazing

 

WMA	ACRES1
Kootenai/Woods Ranch	1,417
Mt. Silcox	1,552
Kuhns	1,530
Blackfoot-Clearwater	43,761
Threemile	93
Fleecer	7,067
Wall Creek	7,067
Mt. Haggin	58,188
Robb/Ledford	28,097
Beartooth	31,947
Beckman	6,568
Blackleaf	10,397
Ear Mtn.	3,047
Judith	9,408
Haymaker	1,321
Fresno Reservoir	2,677
Vandalia	310
Isaac Homestead	1,169
Smith River	3,312
Elk Island	948
Seven Sisters	560

1Area of WMA, may exceed acres that are grazed.

Jim Bailey

Retired Wildlife Biologist