Montana Group Travels to Denver to Promote Local Conservation and Better Communication with US Fish and Wildlife Service

Steve Wanderaas (McCone CD), Dean Rogge (Garfield CD), Rachel Frost (MRCDC Coordinator), Lesley Robinson (Phillips County Commissioner), Elena Evans (MACD Executive Director), and Carl Seilstad (Fergus County Commissioner) outside the Regional Offices of the US FWS in Denver.

A group of Montana folks representing 4 counties as Conservation District Supervisors and County Commissioners traveled to Denver on January 26^th to meet with leaders in the Mountain-Prairie Region of the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Dean Rogge from Garfield County Conservation District, and Steve Wanderaas of McCone County Conservation District, traveled with Missouri River Conservation Districts Council (MRCDC) Coordinator Rachel Frost, Montana Association of Conservation Districts Executive Director Elena Evans, Phillips County Commissioner and local rancher Lesley Robinson, and Fergus County Commissioner Carl Seilstad to the Mile High City. There they met with Noreen Walsh, Regional Director; Matt Hogan, Deputy Regional Director; Will Meeks, Assistant Regional Director of Refuges; and Mike Blenden, Refuge Supervisor for Montana, Wyoming and Utah to discuss locally-led conservation efforts in Montana.

The purpose of the visit was to highlight the success of current locally-led conservation efforts, and to provide local insight on the socially complex issues of bison, endangered species, and changing land use. With both County Commissioners and Conservation District Supervisors in attendance, the group was capable of conveying the broad range of indirect effects that regulatory uncertainty and conservation efforts without local support can provoke in communities.

The attendees described efforts such as the CMR Community Working Group which is a stakeholder group dedicated to enhancing the vitality of the region surrounding the CMR NWR, the Montana Saltcedar Team which is a collaborative approach to prioritizing and treating saltcedar infestations in the Missouri and Musselshell watersheds, and the Montana Rangelands Partnership, which is a public/private partnership to bring technical assistance and uniformity among agencies to rangeland monitoring and whole ranch planning. Efforts such as these and many other examples of locally led conservation practices were described demonstrating the resourcefulness of local communities to work together to solve their natural resource problems.

Along with all the good things that are currently happening in Montana, the group had the opportunity to provide insight on the challenges that conservation efforts are facing. Regional leaders were made aware of the constant pressure on local landowners and how pushing a single species or agenda too strongly can result in lost conservation opportunities across the broader landscape. Landowners expressed their desire to be included in the data collection, interpretation, and decision making efforts of the service and advocated for better communication regarding future petitions of species for protection under the Endangered Species Act.

“For any conservation effort to be successful, it has to have local buy-in and support”, Dean Rogge advocates. Conservation does not always have to be a big endeavor fueled by lots of money; and is often more successful as a local endeavor fueled by the passion of people who care for the land and respect the local economy and culture.

The group concluded by inviting the Regional leadership to Montana, to attend local working groups, and visit personally with local conservation districts and engaged landowners. Walsh expressed her desire to meet with local landowners and thanked the group for making the effort to travel to Denver to reach out and maintain communication. We will try to make that happen with a formal invite this spring. This trip was also an opportunity for us to show our appreciation for those local agency employees who work with conservation districts and county government to find solutions to natural resource issues that work for everyone. However, sometimes the local agency employees do not receive funding or political support from their supervisors for locally important projects. This can prevent their participation, end the project, and in some cases, damage the relationship between the local agency office and the community. It is our belief that visiting directly with the upper-level management of agencies will encourage them to provide the needed support to local agency offices to work more cooperatively with Conservation Districts and county government. It is good practice to remind the Regional leadership of agencies that decisions they make can have impacts on local communities far outside the confines of their agency. When the federal government makes better decisions by using the input of local people, all of Montana benefits through decision that are more sound, take into account more factors, and focus on sustainability.

 

 

 

 

McCone Conservation District Letter to MT FWP on Draft Bison EIS

Submitted and mailed: September 8, 2015

McCone Conservation District is a board of seven elected officials and unit of local government mandated by state law to provide for local control of natural resource management programs and activities. (§ 76-15-102 MCA)  McCone County comprises of 1,717,120 acres including three watersheds:  the Red Water River, Prairie Elk-Wolf and Fort Peck Reservoir.  Approximately 87,573 acres or 5.1 percent lies in the 1.1 million land and water boundary acres of the Charles M Russell National Wildlife Refuge (Koontz, Sexton, Ishizaki and Ritten, 2012).

We are writing to ask that you support the “No Action” alternative being analyzed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Bison Conservation and Management in Montana. Ranchers, farmers, bison producers, tribal business entities, conservation districts, county commissioners and the Montana Association of Conservation Districts have all voiced their concerns of ecologic, economic and environmental consequences of bison re-introduction in Montana. We stand with the multitude of testimonies against this action.

McCone County citizens passed An Ordinance for the Protection of Soil and Water from Wild, Free Roaming or Domestic Bison Grazing in McCone Conservation District in the 2012 General Election. Of the 1018 voters, 640 or 63% voted yes, 318 or 31% voted no and 60 or 6% abstained from voting. It reads: To enact a soil conservation and erosion prevention program for the conservation and protection of land, water, and other resources of the McCone Conservation District from the grazing of wild, free roaming and domesticated bison; encourage the use of land in accordance with its capabilities and treat it according to its needs; prevent the degradation of rangelands, cultivated lands, waterways, drainages, reservoirs and lakes; protect the tax base; protect and promote the health, safety and general welfare of the people; and ensure that soil resources are preserved for the production of food and fiber for the present and future generations of this district. This document is not about wildlife versus livestock designation, but of the conservation of natural resources. § 76-15-102 MCA gives Conservation Districts this authority.

During the public scoping progress, one of the potential locations for bison restoration discussed was the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge. The six-county area surrounding the Refuge are Fergus, Garfield, McCone, Petroleum, Phillips and Valley. The population is 25,287 residents (2008 Census) or approximately 2.6 percent of Montana’s overall population. In 2007, gross revenue for agricultural operations of this area totaled $364.7 million–$164 million from livestock, $133 million from crops and $67.7 million from other sources (Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2008). Farming and ranching are important cultural forces and the largest employer in each of those counties (Koontz et al., 2012). Agricultural interests could be negatively impacted by bison in areas near private land but the magnitude of those impacts is difficult to determine without a specific restoration site (EIS Executive Summary). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) ability to influence local economic activity and desired economic conditions will be related to its land-use decisions and associated land uses (Koontz et al., 2012).

In the 2007 Agricultural Census, the six-county area combined had 52,996 sheep. Sheep associated disease Malignant Catarrhal Fever (MCF) in bison is highly lethal, with almost 100% mortality within an infected herd (Schultheiss et al., 2001). Bison most commonly become infected through direct contact with domestic sheep, though there were cases where MCF was reported in bison herds that were located 3 miles from a lamb feedlot (Schultheiss et al., 2001; Gates et al, 2010; Draft Bison EIS Page 39). It is generally recommended that domestic sheep herds not be grazed within two miles of bison to protect the population from MCF and Johne’s disease (paratuberculosis).

In the Bison Restoration Project Guidelines 3.3.1, current grazing allotments for domestic livestock should not need to be to be adjusted because of a bison restoration program unless mutually agreed upon by current allotment holder(s). Grazing allotment plans could be changed based on environmental conditions or other direction/desires from the land management agency with jurisdiction (Draft Bison EIS Page 62).   Yet in the Henry Mountains, there are currently no active sheep allotments in the area as the past active allotments have been changed to cattle allotments in order to reduce the chance that sheep could transmit MCF to bison (UDWR, 2007b, Draft Bison EIS Page 79)

Also in the 2007 Agricultural Census, the six-county area held 401,377 cow/calf pairs.   Van Vuren (1979) reported that both bison and cattle on the Henry Mountains were primarily grazers, but that bison diet consisted of 5% browse, compared to no use by cattle. Cattle, on the other hand, were more likely to use forbs than bison. While dietary overlap with cattle is significant, bison may be more likely to use shrubby vegetation during winter periods (Harper et al., 2000). In a study comparing the diet compositions of bison and cattle on short-grass plains, Peden et al. (1974) found that “bison appear to have a greater digestive power than cattle when consuming low protein, poor quality forage . . . “(pp. 497) Plumb and Dodd (1993), however, found in a comparison of bison and cattle grazing on mixed prairie that their results “do not completely support the hypothesis that bison have the ability to digest lower quality forages better than cattle” (pp.63). Bison and cattle were managed within enclosed pastures in both studies.

In spite of these beneficial behavior differences in free roaming bison, their population distribution will largely determine the degree of direct forage competition with livestock (Van Vuren 1979).   Fuhlendorf et al., (2010) states “the differences and similarities of bison and cattle on complex landscapes have not been adequately studied, and there are few studies that directly compare bison and cattle.” We agree.

This area covers 16 percent of Montana’s land with only 2.6 percent of her population. That’s about 1.1 person per square mile. It’s wide open country where people are friendly, hardy and resourceful.   Bison in the backyard alters the landscape that 100 + years of agriculture and ranching have changed—for better or for worse. It’s a romantic idea of thousands of hooves thundering across the prairie, but in reality that creates havoc with fences, livestock and people in our world. If cattle or sheep operations are replaced by bison, the losses to the local economy will be enormous.

We respectfully ask that you choose the “No Action” alternative. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Steve Wanderaas, McCone Conservation District Chairman

Literature citations available through District office.

October 3rd–Rangeland Monitoring Roundup