Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Elk Hunting Ranchers are not the elks friend or the Sportsman.

Article;

Elk may be culled to battle disease threat

"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."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25558285

"BILLINGS, Mont. - 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.
Story continues below ↓advertisement

"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."

One goal is to eliminate the disease
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.

Millions already spent on disease control effort
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, Wyo., 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."



I have friends who are ranchers and we go round and round bout this all the time.
I call them up and ask them if they are watering and feeding my elk? They hate it when I do that!

There's a double meaning to these ranchers when they say,
"we need to reduce their numbers."

I hear the taste of brucellosis, can be hidden with A1 sauce.

Brucellosis is nothing to mess with. It can devastate the livestock industry. A rancher can easily lose an entire calf crop if it gets going in his herd. Then the cows become carriers. Once they have it, there's no cure other than a thump on the head. In former years, it wiped out many ranchers & dairmen.

The heck with artery clogging beef steaks and burgers. Buffalo tastes better and is healthier too as well as venison.

MtnHtr

How can there be too many elk? I thought that all the elk were being wiped out by the wolves? Am I missing something here?

All wildlife is considered the enemy of most the Ranchers I know. The cattle gave the disease to the elk in the first place. They should be removed from contact with the elk not the other way around. The Ranchers have it backwards. It's easier to move the captive cattle around than the wild elk. By the way the elk numbers are way down in Yellowstone. Ask anyone that's hunted the areas. Gardner use to issue over 3000 cow tags. Now their down to less than 150. I'd say that was a reduction. Oh this will all be blamed on the wolf, watch the outcome on this one. Where's Saveourelk.com on this one.

That's good, LOL!

If the numbers of elk are down why are they crawling over and thru fences in areas that they never been a problem before. Whats pushing them to new habitat,why are they leaving their old habitat. Maybe its like Salmon, Id. elk use to stay up in the mountains now they are down around town and along the roads wonder why? it couldnt be the wolves could it. And of course them welfare ranchers it terrible how they wont let the public on their private property to hunt public game that they feed hay to all winter and then spring grass, the sportsman has a right to that game. Maybe the sportsman should ask that some of the lic fees go to feed wildlife in the winter to take up the slack that the ranchers cant do. If a sick animal comes on my private property and makes my animals sick its my fault? This is a private property rights issue not public land grazing issue. danny

I'd take elk over cattle any day. I hate the things(cattle- we sold ours as quick as I could afford to, but have a renter, and still dislike them). But they are someones living. There should be a happy medium somewhere some how.

It is always a shame when someone considers only their money makers, and not the whole scheme of life in the world.

Bigsky... the only thing you left out was the outfitting leases, and doing away with the late hunt in the Mad. Valley.

IMO there are fewer elk in the valley now than there was 15-20 yeras ago, BUT they are all down in on the flats in the ranchers hayfields most of the winter, where as they used to winter at the base of the mountain.

I fully agree that its a private land issue. However if the rancher doesn't want the elk he has every right to fence them out.

Yes you are missing something, some parts of the state are hit harder than others.

The Yellowstone area (Gardiner and such) has been hit very very hard, now the Madison is doing very well and probably as good if not better than ever.

One last thing for all to consider on a side note, ranching is like any other business out there including the ones that you and I are in and non of them come without day to day challenges but we all know that going into it. We all face our challenges and many of them threaten our pay check. There is on guarantee of making a profit in any business out there.

Dober

BigSky56,

For starters where did brucellosis originally come from? I dont think native elk, deer, and bison had it before cattle were on the scene.

So, who's problem should it be to deal with?

Secondly, there are many reasons why elk are living the easy life in hay fields nearly all year long these days.

1. Montana has an excessively long hunting season for both archery and rifle...total of 11 weeks. Lots more people in the field for longer periods of time pushing elk onto private.

2. The number of leased acres of private land has increased dramatically as well. This forces more and more pressure onto public lands which in turn drive elk onto private.

3. Lots of private land owners either dont allow hunting at all, have it leased (they want as many animals as possible on their land for their fat clients), or allow just a select few on their property.

In recent years the MTFWP has also allowed early rifle cow elk hunts and many late hunts. Meaning your 11 week seasons in some areas are extended to 15-16 week+ seasons. Just last year the general seasons were extended in many areas an additional week.

Things were much different in regard to elk, outfitters, and landowners when I first started hunting elk in Montana in 1980. I could get access to private land, outfitters didnt lease as much, there were lots fewer archery hunters, and lots fewer people that hunted as seriously as they do today.

To blame it on wolves is not only ridiculous, but also simply not true.

Sorry, but I'm not willing to stand by and watch as the Cattlemens associations run rough-shod over my public wildlife. The cattlemen are as much, if not more, to blame than anyone for the problem. The only reason they've tolerated elk, deer, and antelope is because its just another "cash cow" (pun intended) to them if they can lease, charge trespass fees, etc. for sportsmen to utilize the PUBLICS resources.

This one will drive a wedge between hunters and ranchers and I dont think the minority of cattle ranchers will win out. Time for sportsmen to start worrying about themselves and their PUBLIC wildlife...that very same philosophy has served the cattlemen and their associations well in the past. I'm a quick learner and I'll play the same game the Cattlemens Assocations have played so well.

There will be no compromise if it comes down to it from a lot of sportsmen out there.

The problem is there are SH**brains on all sides of the fence...hunters, farmers/ranchers AND PETA peckers. No one wants to find a solution, they just want to defend a position, keep some kind of mindless nostalgia thoughts going, and be on top.

Greed and Avarice rule instead of good sense.

The excess animals could be harvested, slaughtered and sold for food just like a damned cow, except you don't get as much meat from an ELK for the effort. Hunters could get their "back to nature", Dan'l Boone, "around the campfire" experience and the PETA pholks could get their "look at nature", even though nature has been gone for a very long time in this country and most others.

It doesn't take much of a look around to see the problems are human caused because NO ONE, including the animals, can keep their peckers put away. We are screwing ourselves out of house and home because of our stupidity and we are seeing the effects of it right now...it won't be long until Mother Nature solves the problem and all you phools will see the real answer to the problem. Have you developed the taste for "long pork" yet...bet do so or become the porkee.

Here is a simple solution to reduce the problem - but one that will never fly for reasons real and imagined - and that is to allow public hunting on private grazing grounds. Once elk identify that private land isn't a safe haven, it will serve to not only reduce numbers but reduce elk/cattle interaction.

I sympathize with the cattle ranchers - this is a nasty disease that can wipe out a small timer in a heartbeat - but I'll be more convinced of the sincerity of the Cattleman's Association when they publicly urge their consituency to resume the practice of allowing public access to private lands in order to reduce the chance of transmission . . .

I dont sympathize with cattle ranchers at all...as was pointed out by Dober, theres risk involved in all businesses. Why should ranchers feel entitled to eliminate everything and anything that is a threat to their cattle?

Large corporate ranches, grazing associations, subisidized grazing, and other predatory practices by the cattle industry itself have put more "small timers" out of business than any disease...and thats a fact.

They cause the problems and the disease was started from cattle, that isnt MY problem, thats THEIR problem.

Leave my public wildlife alone.

Yep, let the ranchers go bankrupt and sell everything off in 40 acre ranchettes where there will be no hunting at all.

Right now if ranchers had not put up so much resistnce, you would have wolves crawling over each other eating elk.

Some diseases do come from domestic livestock, but CWD is spread by too much wild life in too close proximity.

The more you cost the ranchers, the more your beef prices go up.

The people bitching here about this do not have a clue as to what will happen if Montana loses thier brucellosis free status.

I'm not a rancher nor do I live in Montana

Perhaps the sportsmen and cattlemen can put enough pressure on our congress to open Yellowstone for hunting ? Doubtful, but crazier things have happened. I would rather see hunters in Yellowstone than elk being culled.

:/hey, I just heard that someone paid 127 K to take a bull in Jellystone, nope scratch that it was Texas or was it......grins

Dober

Saddlesore,

You couldnt be farther from the truth if you tried to be.

For starters, take a look around at who is selling off the family ranch. Even when cattle prices are good, theres land being sold left and right by ranchers that are either getting too old to ranch or by their kids who have no interest in ranching. Further, the ranchers as well as their kids, will sell to whomever will give them the biggest profit. They dont care if they sell to a developer or develop the ranch themselves to make more money...its always the bottom line. Thats fine, I can live with that. However, dont expect me to come to the pity party you're trying to throw for the poor old rancher when they make the decision to maximize profit by subdividing and/or selling off the ranch.

I'm not forcing them to ranch, not forcing them to sell either, its all THEIR personal choice. In business you assume risk. Part of that risk in ranching is disease, weather, predators, etc. If they cant accept the risk, they need to get out of the business. Thats the way it works.

I wont be supporting this latest bunch of BS from the cattlemens association. MY public wildlife is worth more to me and the public than some herd of disease ridden, slobbering, goo-butted, black angus mongrels.

I also dont care if beef prices go up to $10 a pound...hell, the ranchers that remain will be rolling in money and I'll still have elk to hunt.

Win-win.

Wow, this even made the Campfire!

Rimrock, aka Bill O'Connell here, with a little different perspective on the MSM (main stream media) than I had yesterday at this time.

Matt Brown, the AP writer of the linked article interviewed me last week. He'd got wind of a meeting we had over in the Madison, where some of the landowners are advocating that we bait elk into "pop-up corrals", test them for brucellosis, slaughter the positives, and haul off the negatives to "somewhere they want them", or somesuch.
Now since they're talking about one of MY hunting areas, plus I've been involved with the wildlife committee of the Ranchlands group for several years now, Shannon Taylor and I crashed the "party". Actually he facilitated SCI paying for the new and extremely capable mediator Ginny Tribe.
Gads, there's WAY more to this than I can sum up in a paragraph or three, but to get back to my original point about the MSM, it took a little for it to sink in just how far this article went.
My inbox and phone have been lit up all day by people from literally all over the country wanting to know how they can help!

One major point, though... There is NO evidence that elk are responsible for brucellosis transmission in Montana. NONE!! In Idaho and Wyoming, yeah, thanks to feedgrounds, yes, it was elk. In Montana, the brucellosis cases so far involve a WAY disproportionate number of Corriente cattle, aka Mexican roping stock.
Of course APHIS failed to collect tissue samples from the Corrientes in last summer's brucellosis discovery. It's easier to blame buffalo.
Except wait, there's no way...
So then it's ELK!! Kill 'em!!!

This time their reach has exceeded their grasp.