Wyoming's Insatiable Appetite to Artifically Feed Elk:

100 Years of Formulating a Bad Practice!

We begin saying that because Wyoming had a chance to correct a wrong and they are not taking the opportunity before them. At some point, one has to say, shame on them. GWA (along with several other NGOs) has been involved in two litigative actions against the Bridger-Teton National Forest of Wyoming as they continue to bow down to the pressure of the Wyoming Fish and Game Commission. There is much history behind the story, a story that indeed does go back actually before the last 100 years. What may have begun as good intention from preventing the starvation of elk near the turn of the 20th century has now become an excuse to continue feed elk to contain the species and prevent them from contaminating cattle with Brucellosis and from destroying hay fields and infrastructure of private stockgrowers adjacent to the National Forests of Wyoming.

GWA has partnered with Western Watersheds Project, Wyoming Wildlife Advocates, Sage Steppe Wild, Sierra Club Wyoming Chapter, and the Yellowstone to Uintas Connection. The link below is a collaboration of thoughts, ideas, and policy on Wyoming's latest opportunity that they are letting to slip away. This article, an Opinion Piece found in the WyoFile provides the reasons why Wyoming Fish and Game Commission should rethink what seems to be an evitable vote, a vote to approve the latest Wyoming Elk Management Plan.

Wyoming's Fish and Game Department should vote NO on the Feeding of Elk

The same opinion piece was published here in the Pinedale Roundup - seen here.

Final Elk Feedgrounds Management Plan:

Wildlife advocates call for ecological responsibility, integrity instead

By Western Watersheds Project, Wyoming Wildlife Advocates, Sage Steppe Wild,

Sierra Club Wyoming Chapter, Yellowstone to Uintas Connection and Gallatin Wildlife Association

PINEDALE ROUNDUP COMMENTARY

The Wyoming Game and Fish Department’s (WGFD) Final Wyoming Elk Feedgrounds Management Plan, published earlier this month, perpetuates the practice of artificially feeding elk — a method contradicted by scientific consensus highlighting its detrimental effects on elk populations. Despite this approach being

unsustainable, the plan inadequately addresses the necessity for change, admitting that ceasing feedground operations would benefit elk but failing to propose a concrete strategy for doing so.

“The Game and Fish Department’s head-in-the-sand approach to the crisis it has created is leading to the permanent contamination of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem with disease agents,” said Jonathan Ratner of Sage Steppe Wild. The introduction of ‘sideboards’ has stifled meaningful progress toward a sustainable

and ecologically responsible management strategy for elk. These sideboards prioritize existing elk population objectives (which have nothing to do with the carrying capacity of elk habitat), hunting but not predation, to manage populations and minimize elk-related impacts on private property and livestock over the urgent need for wildlife health, ecosystem integrity and disease control. “This plan basically retains the status quo of feeding in perpetuity, while livestock consume most of the forage in summer and winter range. This results in the inevitable spread of disease by concentrating elk. The state’s continued persecution of predators and scavengers which

select diseased animals and consume carcasses and are agents that can help reduce disease will also continue,” explained John Carter of the Yellowstone to Uintas Connection.

The plan’s implementation of “sideboards” effectively grants veto power to the livestock industry, disproportionately impacting wildlife management. Furthermore, the plan’s strategy in segregating elk from cattle places undue blame on elk while overlooking livestock’s impact on elk habitats. Similarly, proposed legislation like House Bill 60 could significantly increase financial burdens on wildlife management — costing $1.675 million annually — by requiring compensation to ranchers for elk consumption of their natural forage beyond 15 percent. This cost comes on top of the almost $3 million budget for the feedgrounds, mostly funding hay purchases. This highlights the economic challenges of maintaining artificially inflated elk populations through feedgrounds.

The reliance of elk on artificial feeding disrupts natural processes such as migration, increases disease transmission rates and negatively impacts predator-prey dynamics. While the plan acknowledges the ecological role of gray wolves in disease control and elk population management through natural predation, it paradoxically supports lethal measures against wolves which displace elk from feedgrounds. This approach undermines the ecological benefits of predation, penalizing wolves for fulfilling their essential role in maintaining the health and balance of the ecosystem. According to Kaycee Prevedel, who represents Sierra Club Wyoming, WGFD should acknowledge the importance of carnivores and scavengers in the state because, “these animals serve as a natural form of biological control by eliminating sick ungulates, which in turn helps to reduce the spread of diseases such as brucellosis and (chronic wasting disease) CWD.”

Additionally, the process in WGFD’s planfor involving the public is restrictive, raising concerns about the genuine integration of public opinions and conservation viewpoints into feedground management strategy. For instance, the plan states, “Goals can only be achieved at the rate at which affected stakeholders and public sentiment align.”

On this topic, Kristin Combs of Wyoming Wildlife Advocates explained, “That speaks directly to the fact that they are not going to do anything without approval of a select group of individuals … and they still don’t really have a way of measuring public support or sentiment. This approach failed with the brucellosis management plans in the early 2000s and there’s no reason to think that this process will be any different.” For decades, conservation groups have proposed viable alternatives to feedgrounds that consider the interests of all stakeholders while prioritizing the health and sustainability of wildlife populations. These groups have successfully pushed for the phase-out of Alkali Creek feedground which is set to end operations after this year. This outcome stems from conservation-focused legal actions and highlights a precedent for transitioning away from artificial feeding practices in the state. Hundreds of Wyomingites advocate for the inclusion and active participation of the

community in all wildlife related decisionmaking processes by state and federal agencies.

“WGFD must acknowledge the decisions they make could have consequences beyond the Wyoming state line, such is the nature of disease. Their decision could easily

have ramifications throughout the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem and adjacent states given time. We all have a greater responsibility beyond our own self interest,” said Clint Nagel of the Gallatin Wildlife Association. The reluctance to phase out these feedgrounds, coupled with a narrow approach to stakeholder engagement, underscores the need for anyone concerned about elk conservation to monitor the Feedground Management Action Plans (FMAP) development and implementation closely and participate actively in public commentary. Only through genuine collaboration can we achieve a wildlife management strategy that aligns with ecological principles, public sentiment and the longterm health of Wyoming’s elk populations.

The current plan’s lack of ambition, urgency and clarity stands as a missed opportunity to progress towards more sustainable and ethical wildlife management practices in Wyoming, challenging us not to be complicit in perpetuating an ecological disaster.