The Forest Service did deny the expansion in size of several of them and has imposed a few restrictions.
The Muddy Creek feedlot was the source of infection of elk to brucellosis several years back when Wyoming first lost its brucellosis free status.
Story. Elk feed areas get 20 years. Forest supervisor rejects additions to Fish Creek and Patrol Cabin in Gros Ventre. By Cory Hatch. Jackson Hole News and Guide.
by
Tags:
Dr. Ralph Maughan is professor emeritus of political science at Idaho State University. He was a Western Watersheds Project Board Member off and on for many years, and was also its President for several years. For a long time he produced Ralph Maughan’s Wolf Report. He was a founder of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition. He and Jackie Johnson Maughan wrote three editions of “Hiking Idaho.” He also wrote “Beyond the Tetons” and “Backpacking Wyoming’s Teton and Washakie Wilderness.” He created and is the administrator of The Wildlife News.
Comments
The best thing you can say about this decision is that it’s criminally negligent.
If it’s OK for Wyoming to have elk feedlots as a “replacement to native winter range usurped by development,” how about grizzly bear feedlots to replace summer range usurped by development?
Save roadkill, slaughtered buffalo, etc. and create grizzly bear feedlots on public land near Wapati, Afton, and Lander. Give the grizzly bear population a boost, the same as the elk population gets a boost from feedlots.
What’s good for the goose/elk, is good for the gander/grizzly, eh?
Yellowstone area grizzlies lost one rich food source–spawning cutthroat trout–because some dunderhead illegally planted lake trout in Yellowstone Lake, so it only seems fair and reasonable to replace that food for the grizzlies. Global warming is contributing to the demise of whitebark pine, another source of high calorie snacks for grizzlies, so what’s wrong with replacing that food?
If elk feedlots to replace food/habitat losses are OK, what’s wrong with grizzly bear grocery stores to replace food/habitat loss?
Dave,
You’ve got my vote. At least then I’d have a reliable place to get photographs of the big griz! 😉 (yes, I’m kidding)
So, did you all see this? There are a couple stories out today on the ranchers out in Wyoming on brucellosis. So, the rancher there isn’t slaughtering the herd – so Wyoming loses its brucellosis status.
But, what caught my eye is another rancher who isn’t required to test because he has spayed all 750 of his cattle. This is okay because “by having the animals spayed, the rancher eliminated the possibility that the cattle could transmit brucellosis.”
True enough, and yet bull bison are slaughtered year after year for a disease they cannot transmit at all. Yet another example that’s what good enough for cows is not what’s good enough for buffalo.
See http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2008/07/17/news/wyoming/30-slaughter.txt
“Rancher leaning toward testing, not slaughter”
There’s also a story in yesterday’s Sublette Examiner related to the issue:
http://www.subletteexaminer.com/V2_news_articles.php?heading=0&page=&story_id=813
“Daniel rancher opts to test out”
Thanks Jim, for pointing out their continuing double standard