Proposed pronghorn migration corridor protections flowing by Jim Magagna’s west slope Wind River Range ranch didn’t look right to the longtime livestock industry lobbyist.
Two portions of the Sublette Pronghorn Migration Corridor — the “Red Desert” and “East of Farson” segments — were “basically separate,” “much shorter,” lacked bottlenecks and “don’t have any of the same risks” as the other eight segments traversed by the long-studied Green River Basin pronghorn herd, Magagna told WyoFile.
“If they need a formal designation — which I tend to think they probably don’t — that ought to be a separate process,” said Magagna, executive vice president of the Wyoming Stock Growers Association.
In public meetings, a formal comment letter and in conversations with “various people at the top,” Magagna let it be known that he wanted the 270,000-plus acres dropped and not designated as a migration path. That’s about one-tenth of the proposed corridor’s overall acreage. The request, he said, was not based on the migration paths going through his ranch and federal land grazing allotments.
On Tuesday, the public learned that Magagna is in line to get his wish.
The Game and Fish Department outlined its current proposal ahead of next week’s Wyoming Game and Fish Commission vote on whether to advance the state’s first protected pronghorn corridor. If approved, the commission’s recommendation would then go to Gov. Mark Gordon — the next step in a politically fraught process that’s been going on for six years and counting.
One document shows that the state wildlife agency no longer wants to designate the “Red Desert” and “East of Farson” segments as part of the migration corridor. The recommendation doesn’t mention Magagna’s input, instead citing a lack of “high-use” habitat in the area, no bottlenecks and “limited threat levels” as the rationale for dropping two of the pronghorn corridor’s ten segments.
Game and Fish officials couldn’t be reached Tuesday or Wednesday morning for an interview.
Rich Guenzel, a retired Game and Fish biologist who personally endowed a pronghorn-specific conservation fund, sees the move as detrimental to pronghorn.
“My recommendation to the commission is that they go with the biology,” he told WyoFile. “This is your opportunity to get the best [outcome] for wildlife. We shouldn’t water it down on our own, we should take our best shot.”
Guenzel, who’s a member of the Wyoming Outdoor Hall of Fame, pointed out an “area working group,” which will include industry representatives, has yet to convene and will have an opportunity to tinker with the migration protection proposal stemming from the state agency’s science-based assessment. Then the actual decision will be made by Gov. Mark Gordon or a future governor, he said.
“If it’s going to be a political decision,” Guenzel said, “let the politicians own it.”
The Wyoming Game and Fish Commission has shown some appetite for shooting down politically influenced wildlife management proposals from its department. In July, the governor-appointed body reversed planned hikes in hunting quotas for mountain lions in the Laramie Mountains.
“If it’s going to be a political decision, let the politicians own it.”
rich guenzel
At least one conservation group that has tracked the sluggish implementation of Wyoming’s migration policy voiced similar concerns to Guenzel. Greater Yellowstone Coalition staffer Jared Baecker said he supports Game and Fish’s earlier inclusion of all 10 migration segments, which used data from over 600 GPS-collared pronghorn tracked over two decades.
“The Wyoming Game and Fish Department’s data has demonstrated the importance of the East Farson and Red Desert segments to pronghorn survival during the winter of 2022/2023,” Baecker wrote in an email. “Excluding these areas from designation goes against the North American model of including the best-available science in wildlife management.”
The Game and Fish commission will also consider authorizing some additions to the proposed pronghorn corridor. The tacked-on areas stem from 54 animals fitted with GPS collars between fall 2022 and this spring, and include 5,900 acres of “high use” corridor, 29,000 acres of “medium use” corridor and 119,000 acres of “low use” habitat.
The added habitat is a drop in the bucket relative to the expanse of the overall migration corridor, which was sized up at 2.6 million acres — larger than Yellowstone National Park — prior to the planned removal of the “Red Desert” and “East of Farson” segments, which would lop off the 270,000-plus acres.
Although the corridor covers a lot of ground, only its bottlenecks, totalling 27,375 acres, would be subject to rigid policies governing surface-disturbing activities. And nearly half of the bottleneck acreage would be exempt from protections because it occurs on private land, which isn’t subject to restrictions imposed by Wyoming’s migration policy.
Wyoming’s migration policy has been ballyhooed and called one of the first and most robust forays into the conservation of wildlife migration. But the current policy — in 2019, due to controversy, it was updated and codified as an executive order under Gordon — has still never been used to designate a corridor in a state where dozens have been scientifically mapped. The Sublette Pronghorn Herd’s migration is the first attempt.
At 8:30 a.m. Sept. 10 in Lander, the Game and Commission is scheduled to vote on whether Gordon or a future governor should formally designate the state’s first migration corridor under the new policy.
Once again a WyoFile story provides good unbiased information, followed up with good discussion. Thanks for the public forum outside all of the meetings that we can’t always attend.
PS, I count 15 comments pro designation, 5 against, 3 not one way or the other.
Oh, one more pro: I’m all for the official designation of the migration corridor as it stands (no shrinkage).
Protecting one of the longest migration routes of any land animal in the world can’t be a bad thing. The needs of the last species of the Family the pronghorn belongs to should be considered. Are we so selfish as humans we can’t allow the Sublette pronghorn to get from summer to winter ranges and back without a little help? The bottle necks some of these need to navigate are critical for their survival, and they have nowhere else to go. Grand Teton to Seedskadee, the Prospects to Rock Springs, Big Piney to Green River, these are just a few of the routes these pronghorn need to have protected. Hopefully the scientific data that has been collected on this herd will win out over the politics of human land uses.
I only have two observations I personally have experienced first hand regarding Pronghorn migration areas.
1). I bought 300 acres between Laramie and Centennial. Pronghorns (and Prairie Dogs) were everywhere!
I subdivided this 300 acre parcel into 7 separate lots, and sold 5 lots over 5 years ago, keeping 2 for myself. There is active development on the lots that were sold; Pronghorns and Prairie dogs today are still everywhere! Nothing changed.. they all adapted to minor adjustments to what they were used to doing. No animal stuck their head in a hole and said “this is horrible! I’m going to die!”
2). I worked as the North Slope Borough (Alaska) field engineer for 5 years. The caribou loved sitting in the shade of TAPS (Trans Alaska Pipeline) as a rest stop during migration. University of Alaska did a study and determined these migrating caribou hung out under the pipeline, enjoying the only shade possible for hundreds of miles, for 1 or 2 days before continuing on their instinctual journey to the ultimate destination they have done for generations.
3). I know I only said 2, but here is an after thought:
My cat was used to being fed with his bowl on the kitchen floor for 5 years. Then we got a dog, which forced me to put his food on a bookshelf. It took him 2 WHOLE DAYS to figure it out. Now he knows where he gets fed without any problems.
Mr. Lawson, since you asked me a question about Mule deer I offer you my thoughts:
When we talk about declining mule deer numbers, it’s important to look at the full picture — not just single out oil & gas. The data shows real, measurable factors that often get overlooked: over 40% fawn loss to predators, elk herds well above objective competing for critical forage, more tags being issued than some herds can support, the growing presence of whitetail deer pushing into historic mule deer range, and increasing recreational pressure brought on by a massive million dollar nation wide marketing campaign by our own Wyoming Tourism Board. The marketing of Wyoming’s wild places has brought more people, many with unleashed and unruly dogs into sensitive backcountry areas at critical times, such as when fawns are being dropped and does need security.
Consider this, Mr. Lawson — the world-class Wyoming Range mule deer herd co-existed in the LaBarge oil & gas fields for nearly a century, reaching population highs of 50–60,000 animals. If oil & gas alone were the root cause, how did that coexistence last so long? Why is it now, with numbers plummeting in both the Wyoming Range and Sublette herds, that oil & gas suddenly gets all the blame?
And if industry is the primary culprit, how do we explain the fact that states like Idaho and Oregon, with virtually no oil & gas development, have seen mule deer declines at the same pace as Wyoming?
The truth is, this is a complex issue with multiple contributing factors. Focusing only on oil & gas risks ignoring the harder but necessary management decisions around predators, elk, whitetails, recreation, and harvest pressure — the issues that directly affect herd survival.
Carbon county Wyoming has more Pronghorn than the entire state of Wyoming. Wyoming has over 50% of the world’s population of Pronghorn. Maybe just maybe we should look not only at path of the pronghorn but also look at the entire state of Wyoming. Yes that means Albany County, Baggs, it also means north of Medicine Bow Wyoming. and Laramie Peak to name a few areas.Why do we not hear much about all healthy pronghorn herds?
Sad to see WGFD become a lapdog instead of an independent agency. Rich is right, the politicians should own this decision and WGFD should not provide cover. We deserve transparency on how decisions are made for wildlife.
In the 1980s you could not go from rock springs to pinedale without seeing pronghorn not so today what happened
Please, Wyo. Game and Fish Commission and Gov Gordon maximize the Pronghorn migratory corridors as reccomended by the science study reccomendations. Pronghorn are the signature species of Wyoming. Ask any tourist or new comer to Wyo and they will rave about Pronghorn on the open plains. But they have to be able to get to the open plains.
What is the real purpose of this designation? Is it to protect Pronghorn or to promote tourism?
Based on G&F own job completion reports (JCR’s) over a 32 year period (1991-2022) and before the brutal winter of 22′-23′ the Sublette Pronghorn herd has not only survived, but thrived. Over this 32 year time frame the Jonah field and Anticline natural gas fields were discovered and developed and now has over 7,000 natural gas wells in total. In fact the herd was over 60,000 during the peak of activity (2003-2010) when 60 drilling rigs were active and all the infrastructure was being built. The agriculture industry during this time was also active in the same areas as they have been for decades and the Pronghorn have consistently maintained G&F herd objectives. In fact of the 32 years mentioned the herd has been over G&F population objective 21of those 32 years, that is 66% of the time. One more fact, The G&F herd objective is 48,000 animals, to be within objective the population can be +/- 20% of the 48,000 number. Over this 32 year period the herd population has averaged 43,191 pronghorn, well within the G&F objective. There was no migration corridor during all of these years, so again I ask….what is the real reason for the migration corridor to be designated?
In two words, the future.
And this would be the same Mike Schmid that believes that massive oil and gas developments are good for big game populations and habitats. Please tell us, factually Mr. Schmid, what the massive oil and gas developments in western Wyoming have done to mule deer populations. Since you’ve made your fortune off of the oil and gas industry, I have a hard time believing that your comments are unbiased.
Hello Bruce,
It’s amazing how folks like yourself keep pointing at oil & gas every time mule deer numbers come up short. That’s the easy storyline — it avoids having to talk about the real, measurable problems: 40%+ fawn loss to predators, elk herds eating mule deer off their own range, whitetail deer steadily pushing into historic habitat, more tags being sold than the herds can sustain, and now the marketing of Wyoming’s backcountry by our own Wyoming Tourism board drawing more people, many with unleashed and unruly dogs in tow into critical fawning areas at the worst possible times.
Answer this, Mr. Lawson: if oil & gas is the silver bullet explanation, how did the world-class Wyoming Range herd co-exist in the LaBarge oil & gas fields for 100 years — peaking at 50–60,000 animals — without collapsing? Now that both the Wyoming Range and Sublette herds are down, suddenly it’s all oil & gas to blame?
And if oil & gas is the big villain, what about Idaho and Oregon? They’ve lost mule deer just as fast as Wyoming, yet have no oil & gas industry to blame.
The truth is, pointing fingers at oil & gas is a convenient distraction, it’s easy. It’s easier to recycle those excuses than to face the tougher reality: predators, elk, whitetails, over-harvest, and recreation pressure are all on the table. That’s where the real solutions — and the hard decisions — are hiding.
This is yet another egregious example of gross over favoring of sheep ranchers to the serious detriment of the native wildlife in this case the North American endemic Pronghorn. This is the very opposite of “multiple use”.
My concern is with the “ridged policies” anticipated for approximately half (13,500 acres) of the tacked on area; that half being either State of Wyoming land or Federal Land. This 13,500 acres or 20 square miles simply further increases lands in Sublette County that already have restricted use limitations. The lands I refer to are the several restricted use habitat areas, at least 9 or 10, as well as restricted use areas resulting from impacts due to gas exploration. The net effect is that much of Sublette County that was once available for human use has over time shrunk considerably. “Ridged policies” on an additional 20 sq. miles would undoubtedly add to the shrinkage.
Our Wyoming Game & Fish Department leadership has lost any semblance of a backbone. Scientific management of our wildlife populations is far too often thrown by the wayside in favor of every whim of the livestock organizations and the mineral industry. What has happened to our once-renowned Game & Fish Department? Please begin standing tall for our wildlife resources again! That’s your job! The public will support you!
The 2 segments of the scientifically vetted migratory path if the pronghorns, proposed to be eliminated, are just as critical as other segments. To eliminate these rwo segments seems to be a “favor” that flies in the face of the whole purpose of the path of the pronghorns. Pronghorns have recently come through a bad winter where many pronghorns died. Removing segments of the known, documented. and already determined critical path is a bad idea.
The way things are going, there won’t be a Wyoming deer and antelope herd in 50 years. All that matters is money.
Well I hope someone lets the pronghorn’s themselves know what the decision is. They need to know so they can change their spring and fall travel plans.
So game and fish wants to shrink the corridors for antelope to make way for herding sheep and other livestock? Are they just reducing the corridor that includes private land? Is this about grazing rights?
it’s always about the grazing rights for the welfare ranchers
I wasn’t planning to comment again, but the area that they want to cut out is perhaps the most important wildlife area in the state and should be managed as such.
A stockgrower or a representative of any group of stockgrowers should not be allowed to influence any decision that should be based on science. They have neither the education or intrest and their vote will only be based on the pocketbook principle.
Magagna is a leech
Its really unfortunate that politics is now the major driver of all wildlife decisions. In 1984, a meeting in Cheyenne was held to address the “need” to put the WGFD under the legislature. I know because I was there. The room was packed at that time with dissenters who wanted science to be the deciding factor in wildlife decisions. At that time the WGFD “advocated” for wildlife. Fast forward to today and all wildlife decisions are political. Every group put together to make any important decisions is made of citizens, many who may not truly understand the science. Usually wildlife representatives are on hand to address whatever information needs to be addressed but are not included in the decision-making process, no vote. So, I’d ask you what it is you want. Political decisions? Or decisions actually made in favor of the wildlife resources and the public lands that maintain them?