MP3 Audio Jan. 28, 2014 Elk Brucellosis local "work
group" meeting at the Livingston Library.
Druska Kinkie opens with statement that calving
will be busy, they will not be able to come up for air until probably
June, so this will be the last meeting. She mentions the current
tools available in the 2014 Elk Work Plan.
MSU Extension Facilitator Mary Ann Keyes introduces
the meeting and the agenda.
4:00 – FWP Quentin Kujula
reviewed the FWP Commission process and the Working Groups product
being applied to that process, which is modifying the 2014 Work
Plan. He explains the Commission will hear the proposals and do
with it what the will. So theres an introduction, public comment
period and final by commission.
I am inserting the
final recommendation version being submitted to the Commission ,
so that you can follow the process and see the final product, which
has been changed from what was last discussed at the Work Group
meeting. BTW, remember that all this is outside Game Damage and
has no requirement for public hunter access during
the general season for any of these actions that sporstmen are paying
for!
9:50 - Recommendation 1
Final
— Reinstate the May 1-May15 dates to the local work
plan. The May 1-15
window is a critical time period for prevention of commingling and
disease transmission in
Paradise Valley. Some form of lethal removal may be necessary to
prevent commingling/disease transmission during this time period.
Livestock producers who desire to prevent elk from commingling with
cattle on private property and DNRC lands must have tools available.
When hazing becomes ineffective, forms of lethal removal should
include both the EMRs and kill permits.
18:21 - “Elk calving
must be prevented from creating new calving grounds along the river
bottom.” Art Burns wanted, “...along the valley floor,”
added. Discussion of historical/traditional elk calving grounds.
Discussion of migratory and resident elk herds. FWP Karen Loveless
pointing out that people might object to their efforts of dealing
with elk in the whole valley, suggested they focus on terminology
that involved their cattle operations.
29:39 – One man from
Wilsall asked, “Would you want landowners in there with livestock
producers, so you're not limiting it to a certain group? Cause maybe
somebody just might not want them around.” Another person
correctly brought up that landowners dont deal with brucellosis,
unless they are livestock (?). Karen Loveless, “It would be
tough to justify it as brucellosis risk management if there werent
cattle.”
31:50 – They add DNRC
land, not just their private land, to the area utilizing elk lethal
tools. ( I called the DNRC office in Bozeman,
to speak to them about this meeting and the inclusion of DNRC in
to the conversation. Greg Campbell mentioned that the Madison ranchers
had wanted extended hunts and hazing with motorized use, ATV's on
the DNRC leases there. It was not apporoved. Frank Rigler, rancher
who advocates for brucellosis eradication in wildlife at meetings,
leases the DNRC section next to the Dome Mountain WMA.)
32:46 – Dr. Mark Albrecht,
DVM, also member of the Statewide
Elk Brucellosis Working Group, “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.”
Druska Kinkie, “So could you restate that please?”
MA, “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.”
DK, “Does it read all right to the way it is right there,
or does the DNRC part add the problem?”
MA, “I well, I mean I think the private property one is paid,
a conservation easement has been paid upon, what...”
Mary Ann Keyes, “Help me to understand for a point of clarification,
a conservation easement on that private ground thats been paid for,
thats not the owners responsibility to allow that to happen?”
MA, “Well, I dont know. 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.”
Mark Albrecht then brought up checks and balances, asked the question
of, “these kill permits, these emergency hunts are expected
to disperse animals. What if they dont? How do we measure if they
work or the dont work? And how do we know if it works?”
47:55 – Dr. Mark Albrecht
DVM, “My one caution, just because we went through this...a
question I think you will be asked, Quentin knows I like to play
Devil's Advocate, cause Id like to see this go as far you guys can
get it, the question that comes up is,
No. 1 Fundamental Objective, to give backward, is minimize
risk transmission. Does a lethal permit, this is a question I think
you are going to get, and the commission may bring it up, or (?),
does lethal removal minimize the risk of transmission? You may disperse
those elk, and if youre talking about 6-10 elk, youre putting a
fetus on the ground between May 1st and May 15th. You just put brucellosis
on the ground. Im sure that caution would be used to the best it
could, but caution really needs to be used well to make sure that
theres not an opportunity for livestock having contact with where
that gut pile is. Because that is an abortion. An abortion is how
this is transmitted, its not commingling, its the abortion event
and that lethal removal is an abortion event. And I think theyre
going to be asked to say, 'If we are going to use lethal removal,
prove to me that its really accomplishing what we want.' Which is
where I was going previously, to say, thats a checks and balances.
Not only did this work, those 10 elk never came back and we were
able to keep cattle from coming in contact with that. That strengthens
what youre doing.”
FWP Quentin Kujula, “I think gut pile management is certainly
a good point. Gut pile management is embedded in the Work Plan already
(gut piles were not managed last spring).
Druska Kinkie, “And short of, I mean the concept is, if you
prevent commingling, youve prevented disease transmission. If you
want to get down to the nitty gritty, you would have to test the
abortions and if it was hot and you removed it and the elks not
there, you prevented transmission.”
MA, “If you dont abort, you wont have transmission.”
DK, “Right, but Im saying that if you kill one and have a
gut pile, you test it and it was positive, then you have in essence,
prevented a transmission, prevented a commingling.”
Kathryn QannaYahu, “Of the 8 elk in Region 3 (Hunt District
317) that were taken this last season, only 3 tested seropositive.
When I requested from Neil Anderson (FWP) the test results on that
for culture, to see if any of them had been culture positive, because
seropositive
does not equal infection or infectious (only
positive for antibodies), he stated that they never even
tested to see if those were culture positive. So you have no idea
of knowing they were actually potential transmitters of brucellosis,
because all they went off of was a seropositive test.”
Quentin Kujula then tries to redirect the discussion.
59:00 – They voted on
this recommendation going to the FWP Commission in February. Majority
voted yes.
1:02:40 – Recommendation
2 Final
These recommendations are meant to be applied on private
property as
described in a plan developed by the property owner(s) and/or their
designee(s) in conjunction with Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks.
A) Use large-scale fencing in suitable areas for creation of corridors
to allow elk movement, but prevent comingling and disease transmission
in pastures used by cattle during the risk period, and
B) The unwritten definition of ‘small-scale’ should
be increased to include pastures where cattle are present during
the risk period and
C) Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks should include fence modification
(e.g., MSU Extension MontGuide 2014) as a method of fencing appropriate
to minimize brucellosis transmission in the Paradise Valley DSA
and should be responsible for the cost of materials, as in the existing
game damage process.
Large scale pasture fencing and gates, tall
enough to keep elk out for the months they didnt want them there,
but able to drop down or add gates for when they did (perhaps hunting
season?). At the Dec.
18th meeting, Rep. Alan Redfield gave the example of his fencing,
he has 160 acres of hay meadow, all fenced off, about $5,000 a mile,
6 ft. high, 5 wire electric fence, 9,000 volts because of the hollow
hair on them (elk). The MSU representative mentioned $1500.00 a
mile for materials, to modify existing fences.
1:07:00 – Dr. Mark Albrecht,
“I wonder if since Fundamental Objective No. 3 was financial
feasibility, Id just go back and say Fundamental Objective 2 is
Maximize Acceptability to 4 different groups and so you might want
to break down your 24,2 and 2 (the previous vote of 24 yes, predominately
ranchers, 2 no and 2 neutral) 2 between these groups, because that
is Fundamental Objective No. 2 of the Elk Working Group. Fundamental
Objective 3 being this needs to be fiscally accountable, so my questions,
perhaps you sense FWP is feeling short on sportsmens dollars right
now is, is there an upper limit on what can be spent? I mean, its
great to spend somebody elses money. Its great to pass that buck
along to somebody else. I understand the desirability of a large
scale thing, but I see FWP's paying for that, how big are we talking?
That would be a question that I would have.” (As
a friend so succinctly described this, this is "Socialized
Agriculture". They are economically socializing the
costs and losses, yet privatizing the profits.)
Druska Kinkie brings up APHIS,
that, “...they have pledged brucellosis dollars to the GYA
and this would be a place for those dollars.”
MA, “But the FWP commission cant vote on APHIS dollars.”
Again several members bring up fencing for the
whole year, around irrigation pivots, etc, and have to be reminded,
this is supposed to be about the brucellosis risk transmission period,
which they are stating is Jan.-June.
1:16:15 – Jim Durgan,
a rancher and Park County Commissioner, “Thats exactly why
I said private property. Thats my property. I agree very much what
Justin said. If hes got a pivot, he doesnt need those elk down there.
Shoot them at any time, really. Hes got cattle
that probably needs that feed just as much as those elk do. The
Fish & Game Commission, Fish, Wildlife & Parks, have their
livestock that they need to take responsibility for, just as ranchers
have their livestock that they cant go on forest service land during
a certain period, if they have a permit, theyve got to get them
out of there, certain period. We understand that and we have to
make preparation for that.” (Clearly
this group has not heard of the Supreme
Court of Montana. State V. C. R. Rathbone decision, "Montana
is one of the few areas in the nation where wild game abounds. It
is regarded as one of the greatest of the state's natural resources,
as well as the chief attraction for visitors. Wild game existed
here long before the coming of man. One who acquires property in
Montana does so with notice and knowledge of the presence of wild
game and presumably is cognizant of its natural habits. Wild game
does not possess the power to distinguish between fructus naturales
and fructus industriales, and cannot like domestic animals be controlled
through an owner. Accordingly a property owner in this state must
recognize the fact that there may be some injury to property or
inconvenience from wild game for which there is no recourse."
C.R. Rathbone was convicted for shooting an elk, out of season,
for eating the grass at his ranch.) Also, WILDLIFE are not livestock,
they are just that, WILD LIFE.
1:36:50 – Ryan Malone,
“Up above, we talked about private and DNRC lands, just for
the sake of being consistent, should we pull that back down into
that, listing DNRC into that?” (When
I spoke with Bozeman DNRC, Greg Campbell about this meeting, asking
if they could fence the public land, he stated that they would have
to apply for a permit, if the fencing would prohibit wildlife movement,
then DNRC would consult with FWP and see if an Environmental Assessment
would be necessary.)
1:43:00 – Ryan Malone,
“Im going to take a second swing at my first question, just
so you carry it all through. Theres leasing situations and stuff.
Do you want to have property owner/livestock producer this time
around? So youre not limiting? Does that make sense? Because theres
people on the ground leasing, from out of state or whomever, that
might not be aware of whats going on.” So it was decided livestock
owner/or designee. They voted, majority in favor.
1:48:20 – FWP Karen Loveless
was asked to explain about the new hunting proposals for Paradise
Valley, in certain areas concerned with brucellosis commingling
risk, they will have a more liberal season, extend the HD 317 B
licenses in the north end of 313, on private land only. Deanne Durgan,
Commissioner Jim Durgans wife, states though the public comment
period is closed, if this group supported Karen Loveless in that,
before the commission, that would maybe help.
1:51:43 – 3rd
Recommendation
“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.”
Druska states, “Concentrating on local
hunters for these EMR's would be helpful. Side comments supported
this idea.
1:53:54 – Dr. Mark Albrecht,
“The other comment you might hear is if you are only going
to use Park County hunters, then why would you use sportsmens dollars
from anybody who doesnt reside in Park County for the large scale?
You are going to create some conflict that maybe you dont want.”
FWP Quentin Kujala mentions that Druska Kinkie has pointed out that
landowners with kill permits, already have the ability to identify
designees. They vote and Recommendation 3 receives no votes.
Then they vote on supporting Karen Loveless
hunting proposals to the FWP Commission. Majority apporoved.
Please
contact the FWP Director, Deputy Director and FWP
Commissioners (below) to protest this APHIS/DOL, political, livestock
management out of our Montana Elk Management. According to Montana
Department of Livestock's State Veterinarian,
Dr. Marty Zaluski's testimony, based on the responsible science,
"The chance that any one Montana animal (context was cattle)
is brucellosis positive is 0.00024%." Not all cases of brucellosis
in cattle and domestic bison in Montana (or the other 2 GYA states),
since 2008 (when genetics advanced), have been due to elk.
Wildlife Management should be based on current,
responsible, ethical science; not special interest groups greed,
socialized agriculture, politics and the APHIS
brucellosis eradication in our wildlife agenda holding the 3
GYA states of Wyoming, Idaho and Montana hostage by forcing them
to agree to a Brucellosis Management Plan and Memorandum of Understanding,
in order to maintain the Brucellosis Class Free Status. This does
not have to be an "us against them" situation. We can
have a healthy livestock industry and wildlife managed wildlife
in Montana, for the benefit of a stronger, prosperous Montana.
|