Cost against recovery ratios will drive the decision. I'd like to think growing secondary feed that elk and cattle will select over the young aspen shoots would justify choosing this kind of treatment over burning but if the cost is much higher, my gut tells me the government will chose the cheaper method and try to keep the elk off, through various methods, including killing some of them, until the aspens are up 6' to 8' tall.
You might have them share their methods and costs with the executive director of Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife in Salt Lake City. SFW paid a lot of money to high fence some aspen treatments in the last few years, to keep the elk out until the aspens are big enough to survive but it is very very cost prohibitive to fence these 10,000 acre treatment areas, so fencing these projects is a very marginal option. Nobody can afford it. If this groups cost is low enough, compared to burning, and conservation groups like SFW and others such as the RMEF could make up the difference, that could be an option the Forest Service, the UDWR and the Conservations organizations might consider.
DC
