Wyoming Game and Fish should vote no on elk feedground plan

The Wyoming Game and Fish Department’s plan to continue artificially feeding elk belies the best available science and is detrimental to elk populations in Wyoming and across the West.

Whether this harmful practice continues is up to the Wyoming Fish and Game Commission, which will consider approval of the Wyoming Elk Feedgrounds Management Plan at its meeting in Pinedale on Tuesday afternoon.

Despite recognizing the unsustainability of this approach, the plan inadequately addresses the necessity for change, admitting that ceasing feedground operations would benefit elk while 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.

Rather than shut down the feedgrounds, the plan introduces “sideboards.” But all these additional guidelines do is stifle meaningful progress toward a sustainable and ecologically responsible management strategy for elk. These sideboards prioritize hunting to manage populations and minimizing 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 that select diseased animals and consume carcasses and are agents that can help reduce disease will also continue.

The plan’s implementation of “sideboards” effectively grants veto power to the livestock industry, disproportionately impacting wildlife management. Furthermore, the plan’s strategy of segregating elk from cattle places undue blame on elk while overlooking livestock’s impact on elk habitats. To add insult to injury, these unscientific plans use almost $3 million in hunting and fishing license dollars, mostly on 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 if they 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.

Kaycee Prevedel, who represents Sierra Club Wyoming, says Wyoming Game and Fish should acknowledge the importance of carnivores and scavengers in the state. “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 CWD,” Prevedel said.
Additionally, the plan’s process for 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.”

“That speaks directly to the fact that they are not going to do anything without approval of a select group of individuals,” said Kristin Combs of Wyoming Wildlife Advocates. 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 the Alkali Creek feedground, which the state is ceasing operations of 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 decision-making processes by state and federal agencies.

“WGFD must acknowledge the decisions they make could have consequences beyond the Wyoming state line,” said Clint Nagel, with the Gallatin Wildlife Association. “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.”

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 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 long-term 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.

By John Carter on behalf of Western Watersheds Project, Wyoming Wildlife Advocates, Sage Steppe Wild, Sierra Club Wyoming Chapter, Yellowstone to Uintas Connection and Gallatin Wildlife Association.