Cattle - elk conflicts: Opinions?

[BigFin]

Interested to hear opinions of guys on this site.

You couldn't pay me enough to be a rancher. Have many friends and clients who are ranchers and admire them, but sometimes I question the policies in effect to benefit their industry.

Seems difficult to demand that elk and bison get reduced to accomodate a disease that was originally introduced by cattle.

Even more difficult to understand this proposal when many of the cattle are grazing on public lands at a fraction of the cost of private pasture, yet the elk and bison are supposed to be limited or removed.

Hmmmm? I thought wolves had already reduced or eliminated elk and bison enough.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Cattle group's brucellosis proposal draws fire
By MATTHEW BROWN
Associated Press

A cattle producers' group on Monday called for federal agencies to reduce bison and elk numbers around Yellowstone National Park as part of efforts to eradicate the livestock disease brucellosis.

A Yellowstone official rejected the proposal. And a spokeswoman for Wyoming Gov. David Freudenthal suggested the proposal would invite federal meddling in an issue best addressed at the state level.

Brucellosis still lingers in Yellowstone's wildlife after being nearly eliminated elsewhere in the country over the past several decades.

The disease causes pregnant cows to abort their calves. It originally was introduced to Yellowstone through livestock brought in by early European settlers. How to clean up tainted elk and bison populations has so far eluded state and federal officials - raising complaints from ranchers who say they must pay the price for the failure to control the disease.

That was underscored by two recent infections in Daniel, Wyo., and Pray, Mont., both of which are in the Yellowstone area.

Both ranches face the likelihood their herds will be slaughtered as a protective measure. And hundreds of cattle on neighboring ranches remain under quarantine while investigators look for the sources of the infections.

To guard against future transmissions, the California-based U.S. Cattlemen's Association said Monday that the federal government should reduce Yellowstone's elk and bison populations to keep the animals separated from domestic livestock.

"The federal government needs to look at what numbers of animals they could sustain there in the park without them leaving and mingling with livestock," said the group's president, Jon Wooster. "They need a plan to get those numbers in line with forage (in the park) and keep the disease from spreading any farther than it already has."

Yellowstone spokesman Al Nash dismissed Wooster's assertion that bison and elk overgraze inside the park. He said the animals' winter migrations to lower elevations, where they are more likely to meet with cattle, are part of their natural patterns.

"There is no population issue inside Yellowstone National Park. These animals do not leave the park because it is overgrazed," Nash said.

In Wyoming, Freudenthal spokeswoman Cara Eastwood said managing elk and bison is the responsibility of the state - not the federal agencies mentioned by the cattlemen's association.

"This is an issue that is best managed locally by ranchers and officials on the ground, rather than from 2,000 miles away in Washington, D.C.," Eastwood said.

Yellowstone's bison already are aggressively managed. Hunting and a federal-state capture and slaughter program killed 1,600 of the animals last winter. About 2,100 of the animals remain.

But Dennis MacDonald, past president of the cattlemen's Montana branch, said the bison program has not reduced the threat from elk.

He said reducing elk numbers through expanded public hunting would give his industry room to operate - until a brucellosis vaccine can be developed to eradicate the disease from wildlife.

"It's a much more difficult problem to solve," MacDonald said of brucellosis in elk. "I love to see the elk. They are one of the most magnificent animals in the world, but we need to get a handle on this disease."


"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"

 

[d13r]

I love a good steak.....at a reasonable price......and they don't grow on trees.

JB

 

[Zigga]

I guess we need more wolves.

 

[Packout]

There will always be extremes on every side of an issue. Cattlemen who want all wildlife killed off their ranges and hunters who want all domestic livestock off the ranges. Anti-hunters who want no hunting and hunters who want to kill anytime. Hopefully there won't be an extreme measure on either side, as this looks like another case of politicing to me.

As for the brucellosis cases and problems, I view Daniels and being far from the Yellowstone herd. That case and even the one in Montana should be studied more. We have had cattle and elk co-mingling on our place all the time, as both give birth. I guess it should concern us, but it doesn't.

-------------------------
www.sagebasin.com
-------------------------

 

[NMPaul]

Bigfin, careful what you wish for. The day that ranchers do not own large chunks of land, guess who has loads of money and will be buying up the properties.
The Hollywood types, and the mixed bag of wealthy people out there.

Not all ranchers are perfect, but, many of them put water on land that does not have any, they allow hunting even if they try to get paid for it by outfitters or trespass fees.

Do you think the forest is doing such a great job on the land that ranchers lease? Ranchers maintain water, roads.

 

[southmountain]

Ranchers are our Cananry like the miners use to use. When they kill over then were dead! lIKE WAS POSTED ABOVE THE TED TURNERS AND HOLLYWOOD TYPES WOULD CONTROL THE LAND BASE AND WHAT WE CAN DO ON IT OR WILL BE DEVELOPED!

 

[BigFin]

>Bigfin, careful what you wish for.
> The day that ranchers
>do not own large chunks
>of land, guess who has
>loads of money and will
>be buying up the properties.
>
>The Hollywood types, and the mixed
>bag of wealthy people out
>there.


Paul:

I am not sure what you meant. I was not asking for anything. If I left the message that I am anti-rancher, that is not what I was meaning to do. Like I said, I have lots of friends who are ranchers.

But, it will be a difficult conversation when I am faced with government policies trying to exterminate elk from some areas, because of a disease issue that ranchers brought into the equation.

You are preaching to the choir about out of staters. Mr. Turner owns 140,000 acres twenty miles south of my house and another 40,000 north of my house. Fortunately, he does a great job of managing for wildlife, and even though I can't hunt his ground, the number of elk he harbors that become fair game when they leave his property is far more elk than before he owned the property.

I digress.

My point is that we hunters will have a difficult time when our rancher friends and neighbors ask that elk be removed from certain areas.

I would ask you Paul, what if NM ranchers demanded that elk be removed from the Gila due to a disease issue that they had introduced originally? Not that they are asking that in the Gila, but the proposal as pushed by the US Cattleman's Association would be requesting that same circumstance in my hunting areas.

Many of the elk I hunt, and others in MT, WY, and ID are elk in question. Hunters have worked their tails off and donated millions of dollars and hours of volunteer labor to sustain and improve these elk herds and their habitat.

Now, commercial interests who operate partially/significantly on PUBLIC land are asking that elk and bison be contained to a National Park that allows no hunting.

I doubt it will ever fly, but I would like to see ranchers have the same concern about our plight, as we do for their struggle. Most ranchers I know are great guys and love elk, but their organization, associations, and lobbying groups view elk as nothing but competition.

If APHIS, a Federal agency, does not come to some rational changes on the brucellosis issue, they are setting us up for a conflict between ranchers and hunters. Ranchers have their livelihood to protect, and when the rules are written so strange that two positive tests in an area with brucellosis results in an entire state losing its disease-free status, ranchers will have to find a way to prevent losing that status.

For those who don't know, two positive tests in the Yellowstone area caused ranchers in eastern MT to lose their disease-free status, even though they are 300 miles from the nearest disease-carrying elk or bison. The Feds have the rules set that way, so what is the rancher going to request to protect his business? He is going to ask that the elk and bison be removed, as they feel elk and bison are the incubator of the disease.

I do not want to see the Cattlemen's Association push this proposal, as both hunters and ranchers could better spend their time and effort in alliances, rather than battles.

Unfortunately, I don't see this issue going away. If you live or hunt in MT, WY, or ID, time to start paying attention to the proposals as being pushed by the Cattlemen's Association.

And to answer your questions, the Forest Service does a decent job managing the properties where commerical interests have not intervened with attempts to manage for wildlife. I would ask you, do you think the ranchers have managed their subsidized grazing allotments as well as they care for privately leased pasture? Not in my neck of the woods.

Not that any of the previous paragraph matters in the big picture, as hunters and ranchers have too many common goals to let government policies on disease make us adversaries. I don't want to see us be forced to fight each other.

Happy Hunting!

"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"

 

[NMPaul]

>>Bigfin, careful what you wish for.
>> The day that ranchers
>>do not own large chunks
>>of land, guess who has
>>loads of money and will
>>be buying up the properties.
>>
>>The Hollywood types, and the mixed
>>bag of wealthy people out
>>there.
>
>
>Paul:
>
>I am not sure what you
>meant. I was not
>asking for anything. If
>I left the message that
>I am anti-rancher, that is
>not what I was meaning
>to do. Like I
>said, I have lots of
>friends who are ranchers.
>
>But, it will be a difficult
>conversation when I am faced
>with government policies trying to
>exterminate elk from some areas,
>because of a disease issue
>that ranchers brought into the
>equation.
>
>You are preaching to the choir
>about out of staters.
>Mr. Turner owns 140,000 acres
>twenty miles south of my
>house and another 40,000 north
>of my house. Fortunately,
>he does a great job
>of managing for wildlife, and
>even though I can't hunt
>his ground, the number of
>elk he harbors that become
>fair game when they leave
>his property is far more
>elk than before he owned
>the property.
>
>I digress.
>
>My point is that we hunters
>will have a difficult time
>when our rancher friends and
>neighbors ask that elk be
>removed from certain areas.
>
>I would ask you Paul, what
>if NM ranchers demanded that
>elk be removed from the
>Gila due to a disease
>issue that they had introduced
>originally? Not that they
>are asking that in the
>Gila, but the proposal as
>pushed by the US Cattleman's
>Association would be requesting that
>same circumstance in my hunting
>areas.
>
>Many of the elk I hunt,
>and others in MT, WY,
>and ID are elk in
>question. Hunters have worked
>their tails off and donated
>millions of dollars and hours
>of volunteer labor to sustain
>and improve these elk herds
>and their habitat.
>
>Now, commercial interests who operate partially/significantly
>on PUBLIC land are asking
>that elk and bison be
>contained to a National Park
>that allows no hunting.
>
>I doubt it will ever fly,
>but I would like to
>see ranchers have the same
>concern about our plight, as
>we do for their struggle.
> Most ranchers I know
>are great guys and love
>elk, but their organization, associations,
>and lobbying groups view elk
>as nothing but competition.
>
>If APHIS, a Federal agency, does
>not come to some rational
>changes on the brucellosis issue,
>they are setting us up
>for a conflict between ranchers
>and hunters. Ranchers have
>their livelihood to protect, and
>when the rules are written
>so strange that two positive
>tests in an area with
>brucellosis results in an entire
>state losing its disease-free status,
>ranchers will have to find
>a way to prevent losing
>that status.
>
>For those who don't know, two
>positive tests in the Yellowstone
>area caused ranchers in eastern
>MT to lose their disease-free
>status, even though they are
>300 miles from the nearest
>disease-carrying elk or bison.
>The Feds have the rules
>set that way, so what
>is the rancher going to
>request to protect his business?
> He is going to
>ask that the elk and
>bison be removed, as they
>feel elk and bison are
>the incubator of the disease.
>
>
>I do not want to see
>the Cattlemen's Association push this
>proposal, as both hunters and
>ranchers could better spend their
>time and effort in alliances,
>rather than battles.
>
>Unfortunately, I don't see this issue
>going away. If you
>live or hunt in MT,
>WY, or ID, time to
>start paying attention to the
>proposals as being pushed by
>the Cattlemen's Association.
>
>And to answer your questions, the
>Forest Service does a decent
>job managing the properties where
>commerical interests have not intervened
>with attempts to manage for
>wildlife. I would ask
>you, do you think the
>ranchers have managed their subsidized
>grazing allotments as well as
>they care for privately leased
>pasture? Not in my
>neck of the woods.
>
>Not that any of the previous
>paragraph matters in the big
>picture, as hunters and ranchers
>have too many common goals
>to let government policies on
>disease make us adversaries.
>I don't want to see
>us be forced to fight
>each other.
>
>Happy Hunting!
>
>"Hunt when you can - You're
>gonna' run out of health
>before you run out of
>money!"


Bigfin, I should have chose my words more wisely. From reading your second post it is not a case of what "you wish for ".
I find very little that I disagree with in your second post.
The Ted Turner Ranch is a mixed bag. There is a lot he is doing that is great for wildlife , but, is not going to directly help the average Joe hunter.
However, many of the people that will be buying large tracts of the land in the West will not be of the same mindset. The other concern is the foreign interests that are buying land as well.

There are plenty of slob ranchers, but, overall they are our allies for wildlife.

The Forest Service issues that I was refering to is the sad state of our fourests. Over grown, needed control burns on and on.
Of course that has nothing to do with ranchers leasing land cheap for grazing.
I dont thing we are on opposite sides of this issue.

 

[SMOKESTICK]

This is something that needs to be monitored. APHIS has already shown an interest in circumventing states authorities over wildlife by claiming authority to manage diseases that affect both livestock and wildlife.

If they (APHIS) continue to be hell bent on erradicating Brucellosis they will attempt to usurp wildlife management authority from the states and remove disease infected wildlife. This is something that has been alluded to in discussions concerning Brucellosis management.

That being said, I know that many ranchers would also side with sportsmen in protecting the states authority to manage wildlife. Few problems are helped when the FEDs show up to help.

 

[nickman]

LAST EDITED ON Jun-25-08 AT 01:07AM (MST)[p]You asked for this, just remember.

In the first place, there is no cattle rancher alive, that had anything to do with the disease existing today.....so "blaming" cattlemen for the problem is the same as blaming you for importing slaves into the Americas'.

In the second place, ranchers are trying to make a living, just like the rest of us and in spite of the fact that game animals interfere with that endeavor, they try to accomodate wildlife.

When this country was being developed, deer, elk, bison, antelope and bears were in the way of progress and the men providing beef for a growing nation had no use for any wildlife at all. There were no sport hunters or greenies and nobody really cared about wildlife. Americans wanted the beef.

The railroad slautered millions of critters just to feed the crews working to tie the nation together. There were no sport hunters or greenies then either. With the railroads, more beef could be shipped.....Americans wanted the beef.

The bison and elk that the railroad left, were slautered by the army (govt) to starve the Indians out of existance. There still was no problem from sportsmen or greenies. The Indians were interfering with progress and a large part of that progress was beef production.

During the gold rush, the miners literally exterminated the Tule elk in California, to the point that the population was down to something like 15 animals.

A CATTLE RANCHER....gathered them up and ultimately reestablished the population. There were no sportsmen or greenies involved then either.

So now, here we are in the 21st century and all of a sudden, we have hunters and greenies and guess what?.....the cattle are the problem.

The cattlemen are taking advantage? The big ranchers have too much land in private holdings and too many acres of cheap federal land under lease? What a load of crap!

Yes, my family has been in the cattle business, to one degree or another, since before the Civil War, so I am probably a little bent when the whinning starts.

Don't worry however, every year there are fewer and fewer cattlemen willing to put up with all the govt, greenies, hunters and developers BS. We are losing ranchland at an incredible rate and soon there will be no beef production anywhere, outside of huge commercial feedlots.

With every ranch that is sold, condos and people and shopping malls fill up the space. The government does "land swaps" with adjoining federal land, so developers can build infrastructure for the new community.

They establish sanctuarys, parks and laws against hunting or even running your dog.

They build condos around every lake in existance and fill them up with marinas, boats and jet skis, that polute the water so bad, fish have to continously be dumped in to replace the ones the sink to the bottom, unable to live on gasoline and beer cans.

Hell yea! Let's get up a petition and run them damned cattlemen out of our hunting areas.....we can always eat soy burgers.

I'm glad I'm old.....some of you guys are REALLY going to miss the "good old days", I feel really bad for you and your kids.

 

[BigFin]

Nickman:

You are right - I did ask for opinions, and I am glad you shared yours. It is helpful to hear it from the rancher perspective.

Counter points could probably be made to each issue you mentioned, just as you countered all the points I mentioned. You and I may not agree on all the issues each of us mentioned, but we probably both agree that joining forces, rather than fighting each other, is best for both our interests.

The summary of it is that the current policies are heading us down a path of conflict, not resolution. Hunters realize that the loss of ranching to development and the other items alluded to, is not in the best interest of hunters and wildlife.

I would much rather keep WORKING ranchers on the ground and work to find ways where wildlife and cattle are priorities.

My purpose in this post was to point out that the position being promoted by the US Cattlemen's Association goes the direction that creates conflict between hunters and ranchers. Bridges burned in doing so will be hard to repair.

"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"

 

[rancher05]

for ranchers, cows are all they have. it's how they survive. i don't know one rancher who doesn't love to hunt or at least they use to when they were younger, i don't think the ranchers are in the wrong. if you were losing money because of less feed for your source of income you would want more pasture too. but i don't know too much of the land around yellowstone. just thought i would voice my oppion.

 

[feddoc]

Looks like there is a plan to kill off the elk in Yellowstone. foxnews

BILLINGS, Montana ? Federal officials are considering a tentative proposal that calls for capturing or killing infected elk in Yellowstone National Park to eliminate a serious livestock disease carried by animals in the area.

Government agencies have killed more than 6,000 wild bison leaving Yellowstone over the last two decades in an attempt to contain brucellosis, which causes pregnant cattle to abort their young.

Cattle in parts of Wyoming and Montana where bison haven't roamed for decades are being infected, and livestock officials in both states are now targeting elk as the cause.

"We've got way too many elk," said John Scully, a rancher living in Montana's Madison Valley. "Clearly with so many elk, the risk rises. We need to reduce their numbers."

A tentative proposal, drafted by federal officials, sets a goal of eliminating the disease ? not just controlling it in bison and in elk.

Livestock officials say infected elk herds around Yellowstone must be culled ? an explosive proposition for a prized big game species that has thrived under the protection of a dedicated constituency of hunting groups. Nevertheless, pressure is mounting to kill or capture more of the animals.

Outfitters and hunters are digging in against the prospect of killing elk, concerned that too much culling could shrink herds. They contend wildlife managers should focus on vaccinating cattle or eradicating the disease in bison.

"I will fight that tooth and nail. As a sportsman, those wildlife are a public resource," said Bill O'Connell of the Gallatin Wildlife Association.

An estimated 95,000 elk populate the greater Yellowstone area in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. Experts estimate only a small percentage carry brucellosis.

There is no effective brucellosis vaccine for wildlife, and cattle vaccines are only 60 to 70 percent effective. Humans are susceptible to the disease, but cases are rare and usually limited to those who work with infected cattle.

Eradicated everywhere else in the nation, brucellosis surfaced seven times in the Yellowstone area this decade, including twice since mid-June. With the recent cases, Montana ranchers near Yellowstone face severe restrictions on out-of-state cattle sales, and Wyoming ranchers could face a similar fate if another cow in the state tests positive for brucellosis in the next two years.

For bison, the strategy to prevent transmissions has been brutally straightforward. When deep snows prompt large numbers of the animals to migrate outside Yellowstone, they are rounded up and sent to slaughter or herded back into the park.

An estimated $19 million has been spent on those efforts since 2002. Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer said the recent brucellosis infections exposed the program as a failure.

"Managing a disease means more than chasing buffalo back into the park," Schweitzer said.

In terms of sheer numbers, the Yellowstone region's 25 elk herds dwarf the three herds of bison. And unlike bison, which move in groups, elk move freely over the region's numerous mountain ranges, often alone or in small numbers.

Since late 2006, federal officials and the governors of Idaho, Wyoming and Montana have been trying to negotiate a regional brucellosis plan that would deal with different species. But prospects for an agreement remain uncertain given the states' divergent approaches to wildlife.

Wyoming's use of artificial feedgrounds, for example, remains a sticking point among the states. Researchers say the feedgrounds concentrate elk herds and foster the spread of disease.

But Wyoming officials say the elimination of the feedgrounds could make the brucellosis problem worse, if hungry elk scattered into areas where cattle range. Near Pinedale, Wyoming, the state has begun capturing elk and slaughtering any that show signs of the disease.

In Montana, state officials hope to increase elk hunting near Yellowstone and expand a testing program to gauge which herds are badly infected.

 

[Boskee]

LAST EDITED ON Jul-07-08 AT 11:00AM (MST)[p]If it seems the disease is spreading to areas outside the normal migrating patterns of the elk could it be there is an outside influence at work. There is a predator that feeds on both and scientific studies have proved that they can be carriers of disease. Old wolfy may be a factor in the mix on this and may be spreading the disease to the outlying areas where it is contacted and moves on. Just wondering what impact if any the new predator may have in the picture.