FWP Commission to approve the beginnings of Park County Game Ranching?

6 foot tall fences, elk and private hunting parties?

I dont know what they call that here in Montana,

but back in Texas, we called it "Game Ranching".

On February 13, 2013, the FWP Commission tenatively approved the Park County Elk Brucellosis Working Group modifications to the 2014 Elk Work Plan. These modifications were supported by Helena FWP for adoption.

FWP Elk Brucellosis 2014 Work Plan Modifications in Park Co.
Please see page for complete information and contact information to submit public comments.


I have been documenting this elk brucellosis program since Nov. 2012. I have attended, audio recorded and transcribed the 3 Park County Working Group meetings so the public can see what the real objectives are.

There are proposed elk HD changes for this area supported by this group, on their private lands; wildlife prohibitive tall fencing by the miles, paid for with sportsmens dollars and again, no public hunter access required; extended kill permit and Elk Management Removal dates to May 15, including on DNRC public lands that they lease. They had objections to the DSA max quota of 250 Elk Management Removals.

This isnt about preventing the 0.00024% chance that a Montana cattle could possibly contract brucellosis from an elk. This is about depopulating, removing a forage competition ungulate from the landscape, sportsmens dollars subsidizing their Socialized Agriculture and game ranching.

They even had a 3rd recommendation to submit, do away with the Hunt Roster (not like they used it this last season, which is why they have never provided my requested information in my Public Information Request) “Use only Park County hunters for the EMR's (Elk Management Removals) and the kill permits. This is a local work plan, therefore utilizing local hunters would be a way to create relationships between hunters and landowners. These relationships could possibly result in the creation of additional hunting opportunities for future hunting seasons.”

There is also the question if any of these ranches have conservation easements on them for wintering. We have asked this question before and received no answer. In addition to trying to correct their repeated misunderstanding of brucellosis risk transmission to cattle, Dr. Mark Albrecht, DVM, also a member of the Statewide Elk Brucellosis Working Group, asked, “What about lands that are given up for conservation easements for wintering purposes? Thats private land, but it has also been paid for with a conservation easement. Mark Albrecht, Bozeman, Montana Statewide Elk Brucellosis Working Group. FWP just got raked over by Senator Brendan for double dipping...If youre going to start making all these exceptions, what about property thats got a conservation easement on it for wintering ground? Senator Brendan just was on Fish, Wildlife & Parks about paying for easements, then paying for access. So I think you might need to be careful on how that were to go...If youre hazing or shooting animals on property that had a conservation easement on it for winter ground, that would seem to be a conflict that you might want to address, to bring everyone together on that.”

http://www.emwh.org/issues/brucellosis/brucellosis.htm

Kathryn QannaYahu

Is Governor Bullock sanctioning test and slaughter of Montana's elk, bison, moose and deer?

At the Interagency Bison Management Program on November 21, 2013, MT DOL's State Veterinarian stated, during the Brucellosis Seroprevalence discussion, that they would be conducting a capture, test, slaughter and vaccination program with the wild bison exiting Yellowstone National Park, beginning this February. Familiar with the academic papers on the unrealistic and uneconomical subject, as well as the 0.0-0.3% risk that wild bison could possibly transmit the livestock disease brucellosis, back to domestic cattle (no documented case of wild bison to domestic cattle transmission has ever occurred in the wild), I emailed Governor Bullock, to share the science with him, in hopes that he would stop the DOL's 2014 slaughtering of thousands of bison as they exited the Park, as they did in the winter of 2005/2006 and again in 2008. The reply I received, which turned out to be canned, was such a factual, politicized disappointment involving elk and bison, I had to write a rebuttal to correct all the literal bullshit. Below is my reply, with Governor Bullocks email following. I have also included my original bison vaccination citations email below his. So if you like to read in chronological order, start at the bottom. I have received no reply from the Governor's office from this Dec. 26th rebuttal email.

Additional notes, I have repeatedly requested Montana's official position on brucellosis in wildlife, including the Governor's office, and received no such policy statement. I have also researched and uncovered documents that show the State has signed onto USDA APHIS's Brucellosis Management Plan (posted soon) with APHIS, whose current mission statement is the eradication of brucellosis in wildlife - the elk and bison (as well as other cervids) of the the GYA. 

Governor Steve Bullock's Email on Elk and Bison Brucellosis

Montanan's public and our public trust wildlife deserve better!

Please contact Governor Steve Bullock and voice your concern that test and slaughter/vaccine programs are not efficient, economical, nor socially acceptable management tools for our treasured and public trust wildlife.

Governor Steve Bullock
406-444-3111
Toll Free: 855-318-1330
FAX: 406-444-5529
Email: governor@mt.gov
Mail: Office of the Governor
PO Box 200801
Helena MT 59620-0801 

I guess he is anxious to stick it to Montana hunters in 2015, science be damned!

Sen. John Brenden, owner of Scobey Farms, from Scobey, MT, appears anxious to beat the rush to stick it to Montana hunters in the 2015 legislative session. He has already filed (drafting in process) LC0023 - Prohibit sage grouse hunting in Montana.
So heres some back story.  "Sage grouse With the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ordered to decide whether to list the sage grouse as an endangered species by 2015, Western states have been working to establish their own management plans. 'If you think the wolf was a big issue for Montana, it’s a piker compared to sage grouse,' said Sen. Bradley Hamlett, D-Cascade, who sits on the council and the governor’s advisory committee. The governor has appointed a sage grouse advisory committee which has scheduled 10 meetings between now and October. The plan is to have a draft out in October with a final report recommended by late November. Gov. Steve Bullock would then have until early January to make any adjustments with a plan finalized by the end of January, said Jeff Hagener, director of Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Council member Sen. John Brenden, R-Scobey, suggested that halting the state’s hunting season for sage grouse may satisfy concerns expressed by some of the state’s partners. Hagener noted that, scientifically, hunting hasn’t been seen as affecting the bird’s population, but the perception is that if oil and gas leasing may be disallowed in certain areas because the birds are few, then hunting shouldn’t be allowed."


Let's not let science get in the way of wildlife management, by any means.

"In their March 2010 listing decision, the USFWS concluded that the key threats to the continued survival of sage - grouse are 1) habitat loss, fragmentation, and modification and 2) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, particularly in relation to energy and other development. The USFWS also evaluated the 'utilization' (e.g. hunting) of sage-grouse and concluded that 'the greater sage-grouse is not threatened by overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes now or in the foreseeable future' "

.

 Greater Sage Grouse Conservation Strategy Page

American Plains Bison:Rewilding An Icon by James Bailey

For many, plains bison are the embodiment of wildness and the pre-settlement American West. After millenia of evolution through natural selection, however, the species was nearly exterminated, only to be subjected to domestication for more than 100 years. Domestication alters the bison genome through inbreeding, crossing with cattle genes, shrinking genetic diversity and artificial selection. These forces continue to replace natural selection and valued wild characteristics of bison. Does the future hold only continued domestication for plains bison in the United States?
 
With a view from over 50 years in the profession of wildlife biology, Bailey probes this and other questions in his original analysis of 44 conservation bison herds on native range in the United States. He focuses upon the gray area between wildness and domestication and sheds light on domesticating practices of Native American and government agencies, as well as commercial producers. He challenges the profession of wildlife management to expand its views of opportunities for manipulating wildlife populations. For bison, Bailey makes a strong case for creating large reserves to restore wild bison and their natural contributions to our grassland ecosystems.

Jim Bailey was professor of wildlife biology at Colorado State University for 20 years, teaching big-game management and wildlife nutrition. His first book was Principles of Wildlife Management. In retirement, he became interested in the management of bison in Yellowstone National Park. This led to his survey of the conservation status of bison in the United States and reassessment of wildlife management's influences upon the future evolution of large wild mammals.

You can purchase a copy of American Plains Bison, Rewilding An Icon,
at the following locations:

Bozeman - Country Bookshelf, 28 W. Main, Bozeman, MT 406-587-0166
Helena - Montana Book & Toy Co., 331 N. Last Chance Gulch, Helena, MT 406-443-0260
Missoula - Fact & Fiction Downtown, 220 N Higgins, Missoula, MT 406-721-2881; University Center, 5 Campus Drive, Missoula, MT (in The Bookstore at UM) 406-243-1234
Missoula - The Book Exchange, 2335 Brooks St., Missoula, MT 406-728-6342
Check with your local book seller, you can ask them to contact Farcountry Press at
1-800-821-3874, or order from them directly.
Amazon.com

MT Department of Livestock & Livestock Association Brucellosis Statements

Below is a link to the EMWH webpage dealing with the Sept. 10th testimony that Montana's DoL, Dr. Marty Zaluski gave before the Texas Animal Health Commission concerning their brucellosis rule change on cattle imports from Montana, Idah and Wyoming, the 2 GYA states affected by the brucellosis issue. There are a number of statements that we dont normally hear here in Montana on this subject, from the DoL on brucellosis. When I requested the written public comments from TAHC, I received a 72 page pdf file which not only included Zaluski's 50 pages, but statements from the Montana Stockgrowers Association, Montana Cattlemen's Association, some Montana ranchers. The pdf file is broken up by submitter for easier viewing. Also available are the audio files of the testimony. I really hate transcribing, so I have only done the main testimony from Dr. Marty Zalusky, not all the questions and his answers that followed yet. Mr. Palmers testimony on audio file 10 is also pertinent.
http://www.emwh.org/issues/brucellosis/livestock%20tahc.htm

DoL, "Montana's DSA includes 282 operations with 73,200 cattle and domestic bison. This fiscal year, 42,025 of the 73,200 animals have been tested to achieve a 99% confidence that the disease (if it exists) is present at a rate of less that 0.008%. The chance that any one Montana animal is brucellosis positive is 0.00024%." "In comparison, the state of Montana has an annual infection rate of 0.007% with five affected herds over six years since 2007." "There is no documented case of bulls spreading brucellosis." "So what happens is you have cattle properties that are typically on the flats, the river bottoms and the prairies, and then you have the elk ground that is alot of time in the forest. So its not like those elk are on private property typically, and in fact often times those elk are on BLM or Forest Service land," "So there are practices, its not like they come down on the flats, then spread out five fetuses and they take off."
Heres a really good one - no mention of bison, "So really the DSA in the state of Montana is in southwest Montana. And it is designed to identify the cattle at risk from brucellosis positive elk. So we know that brucellosis positive elk are in southwest Montana, they can potentially expose cattle and so the key to identifying the cattle at risk is to identify where the brucellosis positive elk are."

MSA, "There is an extremely low risk of brucellosis transfer posed by cattle coming out of Montana. While a small area of Montana in the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA) is affected by rare transfers of brucellosis from wildlife, the state of Montana has proven highly effective in its efforts to mitigate the spread of brucellosis."
Mr. Palmers testimony (audio file 10) on behalf of the Matador Cattle Company (Koch Industries), the owner of the Beaverhead Ranch in southwestern Montana, discussing how little of an issue this is, "the majority of those times those elk are not calving in the same location as the cows."
Darrel Stevenson, Stevenson Angus Ranch, "As you can see the rate of incidence is extraordinarily low and our policing system has proven to manage with superb efficiency....Why isnt the science trusted? As reviewed in the attached, incident rate in Montana is low and imported cattle to Texas become even lower with a pre-shipment test? With no documented case of bulls spreading Brucellosis, why are they bundled into the concern?"

I would like to ask this same question of the DoL who shot the lone bull bison on the Dome Mountain WMA after hazing it off the Dome Mountain Ranch (private property rights ignored) and shooting the 2 bull bison on the west side. DoL knows that bulls dont spread brucellosis, nor the bison to cattle, which is why he only addresses elk in his presentation. And based on the science and stats presented by Zaluski, as well as the statements from the associations and ranchers, brucellosis from elk is extremely low, extraordinarily low and easily manageable, mitigated. So why in Montana do they inflame the dialogue on this issue and we dont hear this kind of testimony and science?

I think it is time that we put wildlife management back into the hands of the FWP as far as bison are concerned and keep it there as far as the elk are concerned. Remove "eradication/elimination of brucellosis from wildlife reservoirs" from our Fish, Wildlife and Parks documents/statements, such as that which FWP is signed onto in the IBMP; support natural regulation of these wildlife in the Gallatin National Forest and the Yellowstone National Park, as it should be (their signatures should not be on the IBMP eradication/elimination of brucellosis either). Brucellosis is a minimal disease threat to the cattle industry (more cattle are killed by weather or vehicular accidents each year than years of extremely low brucellosis transmission from elk), which can be managed through the DoL herd plans that Zaluski describes, as well as efforts from FWP in minimizing possible transmission of brucellosis through approved Elk Working Group measures such as encouraging security and forage on public lands and hazing from private. 



Kathryn QannaYahu

Public Comments Needed for Elk Foundation Public Access Land Purchase

The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation - "RMEF secured an option on a 40 acre parcel that has access to Lewis and Clark National Forest. This part of the forest does not have an access point for miles in any direction. This will provide hunters with access to some of the best elk ground in all of Montana. RMEF paid $190,000. The seller was a very cooperative person who wanted to see public access improved in the area. Landowners such as that party are at the core of a land ethic that makes some places so special.
FWP wants to own the property and has offered RMEF $50,000 to take over ownership and management. FWP has committed to manage the area as a public trailhead. This will require approval of the FWP Commission and the Montana Land Board. " 

Here is a link to the FWP News Release 

Draft Environmental Assessment Proposed Red Hill Road - East Access Land Acquisition

Here is the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Release

This looks like an awesome opportunity for public access in Montana, especially for public hunter access, which has become more restricted due to special interests locking out public access. Please take the time to send in public comments at the following:

Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks Red Hill Road – East Fork Access Acquisition EA 
PO Box 938 
Lewistown, MT 59457 
(406) 538-4658 ext. 228 

sonjasmith@mt.gov  

Also, please send a note of thanks to the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, who was instrumental in this process and for their generosity.
publicrelations@rmef.org



Kathryn QannaYahu

Public Comments Needed For 2014 Work Plan for Elk Management Guidelines in Areas with Brucellosis

The open ended, "unlimited number of..." 2014 Work Plan for Elk Management Guidelines in Areas with Brucellosis (actually an outline - not a plan) was accepted by the FWP Commission on August 8th. If the hunter / conservationists of Montana do not speak up and protest this "plan", it will become the default plan and will be used as the same open ended plan that was used this year. The elk work plan can be found on pdf at the link below, but I suggest sending your comments to   fwpwld@mt.gov   rather than using the electronic form, which does not give you a copy of what you submit. The deadline for comments is Friday, Sept. 13th, 2013, at 5PM.

A work plan was supposed to be created by a local elk brucellosis working group, but due to the fact that the administrator of this program bypassed the Jan. 10th, 2013 Commission approved Proposed Recommendations, concerning the establishment of local working groups, no local working group work plan could be submitted to the FWP Commission. This is what they got instead - an outline. A "plan" is generally defined as a program or method with a stated goal and objectives to meet that goal, not the "unlimited number of...". 

Background information on what took place in 2013:
http://womwe.blogspot.com/2013/07/montanas-elk-management-in-areas-with.html
http://womwe.blogspot.com/2013/08/reject-elk-management-in-areas-with.html

Points concerning this plan can be found below.

2014 Work Plan for Elk Management Guidelines in Areas with Brucellosis

1. Local Working Groups: It is crucial that there be implementation of the Elk Management Guidelines In Areas With Brucellosis Working Group Proposed Final Recommendations: Fundamental Objective # 2 - local working groups (collaboration of diverse representation - Sportspersons, Wildlife Enthusiasts, Landowners, Livestock Producers and other resource or land management agencies). "All would be open meetings." Montana Annotated Code 2-3-101-107
2. Fundamental Objective # 3: Maximize Cost Effectiveness: These so called Dispersal "Hunts", hazing and rancher stackyard fencing efforts all utilize Game Damage forms and models, yet do not have the requirements of the Game Damage program Montana Annotated Code 87-1-225: "Regulation of wild animals, damaging property ---public hunting requirements. Landowner is only eligible for game damage if...allows public hunting during established hunting seasons..." This is not cost effective for sportsmen if they are not receiving public hunting access in exchange for these services. 
3. Fundamental Objective #1: Minimize Transmission from elk to livestock - needs to focus on Habitat, increasing vegetation on WMA's and public lands to attract and retain elk (elk security to restore public herd), look at reducing grazing on FWP WMA's to provide more forage for wildlife, as well as evaluate later release dates to not interfere with elk calving.
4. Dispersal Hunts: the word "hunt" should not be used. This is not a fair chase hunt situation, it is not ethical hunting, it is a removal. No dispersal removal activity should occur after Feb. 15th, the time period established for ethical hunting considering the gestation period of the cows. Also, no removals should occur in areas that are in decline/under objective. Removals should not be a first choice, but rather a last resort, if that.
5.  Brucellosis: While capture, test and slaughter was added to the draft Proposed Recommendations in 2012, by the FWP editor, it was objected to by the original Working Group and removed for the Final Recommendations. This needs to be adamantly maintained, in light of the ranching community calling for capture test and slaughter, as well as legislative efforts to make it law. Dispersal hunts should not mimic this policy under another name. Gut piles from removals should be managed so that if an elk was infected, any possible brucella in birthing materials, lymph nodes and sexual organs does not present a mode of transmission to cattle or other elk, which would be counter productive to this program (gut piles were not managed in 2013). In addition, FWP is signed on to the IBMP 9 objectives, point 4 being "Commit to the eventual elimination of brucellosis in bison and other wildlife." The only other wildlife in Montana that carry Brucella abortus are our elk. FWP needs to remove themselves from this objective. In addition, USDA and its subsidaries such as APHIS, as well as the MTDoL are promoting and pushing the immunocontraceptive sterilization of our wildlife. This elk brucellosis management plan needs to reject any efforts by the ag/livestock interests in promoting immunocontraceptives or vaccines as a means of minimizing transmission of brucellosis to livestock. "Humans have rarely (if ever) eliminated a disease from a wildlife population without eliminating the wildlife population of concern."
6. Managing for Wildlife: A number of FWP wildlife biologist and peer agency papers and comments concerning the elk brucellosis management plan stated repeatedly that FWP should not be managing elk like livestock, but as wildlife. 
7. Education: There needs to be a concerted effort to produce wildlife management supported educational materials for the public, not this worst case scenario study quote of 81 days (last time I heard the presentation to the FWP Commissioners it was up to 100 days, which has never been duplicated in natural conditions) that brucella remains on the landscape. Even the MtDoL states 21-26 days. 81 or more days is inflammatory and counter productive to the goal of maximizing acceptability of the disease in wildlife and the elk populations. Also, much of the current presentation is advocating the business of the livestock industry and their interests. FWP is in the business of managing Fish, Wildlife and Parks, not livestock.  

Please contact   fwpwld@mt.gov  with public comments on this 2014 Work Plan For Elk Managment. The deadline for comments is Friday, Sept. 13th, 2013, at 5PM.


Kathryn QannaYahu